Hi,

Thankyou for the response. I even checked the table manually comparing
the
values row by row and found no difference.

Puzzled by this behaviour...

regds,
amit

I take it you have the same collation and there is no filtering involved.

--
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html

Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com

[quoted text, click to view]

Hence the comment that checksum validation wasn't always completely
accurate. I've run into this more than once. I've never been able to track
it down and I've never been able to reliably reproduce it.

That's why I look at the validation as a guideline. I still do random
samples of data and directly compare them externally. (This is a lot easier
than you might think.) I basically execute the same query against the
publisher and subscriber and yank all of the data into two tables. If the
rowcount is odd, I know I have a problem. If a union query yields exactly
1/2 of the total rows between the two tables, they are in synch.

--
Mike
Mentor
Solid Quality Learning
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com


[quoted text, click to view]

thanks for respoding back..

Yes have the same collation and no filtering...

Can you tell me which is better binary checksum or checksum
validation?

And how this problem can be resolved for checksum validation failure?
any tracing ???