Search Results

Search found 544 results on 22 pages for 'clustered'.

Page 1/22 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Moving from a non-clustered PK to a clustered PK in SQL 2005

    - by adaptr
    HI all, I recently asked this question in another thread, and thought I would reproduce it here with my solution: What if I have an auto-increment INT as my non-clustered primary key, and there are about 15 foreign keys defined to it ? (snide comment about original designer being braindead in the original :) ) This is a 15M row table, on a live database, SQL Standard, so dropping indexes is out of the question. Even temporarily dropping the foreign key constraints will be difficult. I'm curious if anybody has a solution that causes minimal downtime. I tested this in our testing environment and finally found that the downtime wasn't as severe as I had originally feared. I ended up writing a script that drops all FK constraints, then drops the non-clustered key, re-creates the PK as a clustered index, and finally re-created all FKs WITH NOCHECK to avoid trawling through all FKs to check constraint compliance. Then I just enable the CHECK constraints to enable constraint checking from that point onwards, and all is dandy :) The most important thing to realize is that during the time the FKs are absent, there MUST NOT be any INSERTs or DELETEs on the parent table, as this may break the constraints and cause issues in the future. The total time taken for clustering a 15M row, 800MB index was ~4 minutes :)

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Disable Clustered Index and Data Insert

    - by pinaldave
    Earlier today I received following email. “Dear Pinal, [Removed unrelated content] We looked at your script and found out that in your script of disabling indexes, you have only included non-clustered index during the bulk insert and missed to disabled all the clustered index. Our DBA[name removed] has changed your script a bit and included all the clustered indexes. Since our application is not working. When DBA [name removed] tried to enable clustered indexes again he is facing error incorrect syntax error. We are in deep problem [word replaced] [Removed Identity of organization and few unrelated stuff ]“ I have replied to my client and helped them fixed the problem. What really came to my attention is the concept of disabling clustered index. Let us try to learn a lesson from this experience. In this case, there was no need to disable clustered index at all. I had done necessary work when I was called in to work on tuning project. I had removed unused indexes, created few optimal indexes and wrote a script to disable few selected high cost indexes when bulk insert (and similar) operations are performed. There was another script which rebuild all the indexes as well. The solution worked till they included clustered index in disabling the script. Clustered indexes are in fact original table (or heap) physically ordered (any more things – not scope of this article) according to one or more keys(columns). When clustered index is disabled data rows of the disabled clustered index cannot be accessed. This means there will be no insert possible. When non clustered indexes are disabled all the data related to physically deleted but the definition of the index is kept in the system. Due to the same reason even reorganization of the index is not possible till the clustered index (which was disabled) is rebuild. Now let us come to the second part of the question, regarding receiving the error when clustered index is ‘enabled’. This is very common question I receive on the blog. (The following statement is written keeping the syntax of T-SQL in mind) Clustered indexes can be disabled but can not be enabled, they have to rebuild. It is intuitive to think that something which we have ‘disabled’ can be ‘enabled’ but the syntax for the same is ‘rebuild’. This issue has been explained here: SQL SERVER – How to Enable Index – How to Disable Index – Incorrect syntax near ‘ENABLE’. Let us go over this example where inserting the data is not possible when clustered index is disabled. USE AdventureWorks GO -- Create Table CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TableName]( [ID] [int] NOT NULL, [FirstCol] [varchar](50) NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_TableName] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) ) GO -- Create Nonclustered Index CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_NonClustered_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] ([FirstCol] ASC) GO -- Populate Table INSERT INTO [dbo].[TableName] SELECT 1, 'First' UNION ALL SELECT 2, 'Second' UNION ALL SELECT 3, 'Third' GO -- Disable Nonclustered Index ALTER INDEX [IX_NonClustered_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Insert Data should work fine INSERT INTO [dbo].[TableName] SELECT 4, 'Fourth' UNION ALL SELECT 5, 'Fifth' GO -- Disable Clustered Index ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Insert Data will fail INSERT INTO [dbo].[TableName] SELECT 6, 'Sixth' UNION ALL SELECT 7, 'Seventh' GO /* Error: Msg 8655, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 The query processor is unable to produce a plan because the index 'PK_TableName' on table or view 'TableName' is disabled. */ -- Reorganizing Index will also throw an error ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] REORGANIZE GO /* Error: Msg 1973, Level 16, State 1, Line 1 Cannot perform the specified operation on disabled index 'PK_TableName' on table 'dbo.TableName'. */ -- Rebuliding should work fine ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] REBUILD GO -- Insert Data should work fine INSERT INTO [dbo].[TableName] SELECT 6, 'Sixth' UNION ALL SELECT 7, 'Seventh' GO -- Clean Up DROP TABLE [dbo].[TableName] GO I hope this example is clear enough. There were few additional posts I had written years ago, I am listing them here. SQL SERVER – Enable and Disable Index Non Clustered Indexes Using T-SQL SQL SERVER – Enabling Clustered and Non-Clustered Indexes – Interesting Fact Reference : Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Constraint and Keys, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL Server database with clustered GUID PKs - switch clustered index or switch to sequential (comb)

    - by Eyvind
    We have a database in which all the PKs are GUIDs, and most of the PKs are also the clustered index for the table. We know that this is bad (due to the random nature of GUIDs). So, it seems there are basically two options here (short of throwing out GUIDs as PKs altogether, which we cannot do (at least not at this time)). We could change the GUID generation algorithm to e.g. the one that NHibernate uses, as detailed in this post, or we could, for the tables that are under the heaviest use, change to a different clustered index, e.g. an IDENTITY column, and keep the "random" GUIDs as PKs. Is it possible to give any general recommendations in such a scenario? The application in question has 500+ tables, the largest one presently at about 1,5 million rows, a few tables around 500 000 rows, and the rest significantly lower (most of them well below 10K). Furthermore, the application is installed at several customer sites already, so we have to take any possible negative effects for existing customer into consideration. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • MS SQL Database with clustered GUID PKs - switch clustered index or switch to sequential (comb) GUID

    - by Eyvind
    We have a database in which all the PKs are GUIDs, and most of the PKs are also the clustered index for the table. We know that this is bad (due to the random nature of GUIDs). So, it seems there are basically two options here (short of throwing out GUIDs as PKs altogether, which we cannot do (at least not at this time)). We could change the GUID generation algorithm to e.g. the one that NHibernate uses, as detailed in this post, or we could, for the tables that are under the heaviest use, change to a different clustered index, e.g. an IDENTITY column, and keep the "random" GUIDs as PKs. Is it possible to give any general recommendations in such a scenario? The application in question has 500+ tables, the largest one presently at about 1,5 million rows, a few tables around 500 000 rows, and the rest significantly lower (most of them well below 10K). Furthermore, the application is installed at several customer sites already, so we have to take any possible negative effects for existing customer into consideration. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Understanding ALTER INDEX ALL REBUILD with Disabled Clustered Index

    - by pinaldave
    This blog is in response to the ongoing communication with the reader who had earlier asked the question of SQL SERVER – Disable Clustered Index and Data Insert. The same reader has asked me the difference between ALTER INDEX ALL REBUILD and ALTER INDEX REBUILD along with disabled clustered index. Instead of writing a big theory, we will go over the demo right away. Here are the steps that we intend to follow. 1) Create Clustered and Nonclustered Index 2) Disable Clustered and Nonclustered Index 3) Enable – a) All Indexes, b) Clustered Index USE tempdb GO -- Drop Table if Exists IF EXISTS (SELECT * FROM sys.objects WHERE OBJECT_ID = OBJECT_ID(N'[dbo].[TableName]') AND type IN (N'U')) DROP TABLE [dbo].[TableName] GO -- Create Table CREATE TABLE [dbo].[TableName]( [ID] [int] NOT NULL, [FirstCol] [varchar](50) NULL ) GO -- Create Clustered Index ALTER TABLE [TableName] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_TableName] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([ID] ASC) GO -- Create Nonclustered Index CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_NonClustered_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] ([FirstCol] ASC) GO -- Check that all the indexes are enabled SELECT OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID), Name, type_desc, is_disabled FROM sys.indexes WHERE OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID) = 'TableName' GO Now let us disable both the indexes. -- Disable Indexes -- Disable Nonclustered Index ALTER INDEX [IX_NonClustered_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Disable Clustered Index ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Check that all the indexes are disabled SELECT OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID), Name, type_desc, is_disabled FROM sys.indexes WHERE OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID) = 'TableName' GO Next, let us rebuild all the indexes and see the output. -- Test 1: ALTER INDEX ALL REBUILD -- Rebuliding should work fine ALTER INDEX ALL ON [dbo].[TableName] REBUILD GO -- Check that all the indexes are enabled SELECT OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID), Name, type_desc, is_disabled FROM sys.indexes WHERE OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID) = 'TableName' GO Now, once again disable indexes for the second test. -- Disable Indexes -- Disable Nonclustered Index ALTER INDEX [IX_NonClustered_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Disable Clustered Index ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] DISABLE GO -- Check that all the indexes are disabled SELECT OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID), Name, type_desc, is_disabled FROM sys.indexes WHERE OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID) = 'TableName' GO Next, let us build only the clustered index and see the output of all the indexes. -- Test 2: ALTER INDEX REBUILD -- Rebuliding should work fine ALTER INDEX [PK_TableName] ON [dbo].[TableName] REBUILD GO -- Check that only clustered index is enabled SELECT OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID), Name, type_desc, is_disabled FROM sys.indexes WHERE OBJECT_NAME(OBJECT_ID) = 'TableName' GO Let us do final clean up. -- Clean up DROP TABLE [TableName] GO From the example, it is very clear that if you have built only clustered index when the nonclustered index is disabled, it still remains disabled. Do let me know if the idea is clear. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.SQLAuthority.com) Filed under: Pinal Dave, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Index, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • Doubt in clustered and non Clustered index

    - by Mahesh
    I have a doubt that if my table do n't have any constraint like Primary Key,Foreign key,Unique key etc. then can i create the clustered index on table and clustered index can have the douplicate records ? My 2nd question is where should we exectly use the non clustered index and when it is useful and benificial to create in table? My 3rd question is How can we create the 249 non clustered index in a table .Is it the meaning, Creating the non clustered index on 249 columns ? Can you anyone help me to remove my confusion in this.

    Read the article

  • Clustered index - multi-part vs single-part index and effects of inserts/deletes

    - by Anssssss
    This question is about what happens with the reorganizing of data in a clustered index when an insert is done. I assume that it should be more expensive to do inserts on a table which has a clustered index than one that does not because reorganizing the data in a clustered index involves changing the physical layout of the data on the disk. I'm not sure how to phrase my question except through an example I came across at work. Assume there is a table (Junk) and there are two queries that are done on the table, the first query searches by Name and the second query searches by Name and Something. As I'm working on the database I discovered that the table has been created with two indexes, one to support each query, like so: --drop table Junk1 CREATE TABLE Junk1 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name ON Junk1 ( Name ) CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk1 ( Name, Something ) Now when I looked at the two indexes, it seems that IX_Name is redundant since IX_Name_Something can be used by any query that desires to search by Name. So I would eliminate IX_Name and make IX_Name_Something the clustered index instead: --drop table Junk2 CREATE TABLE Junk2 ( Name char(5), Something char(5), WhoCares int ) CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX_Name_Something ON Junk2 ( Name, Something ) Someone suggested that the first indexing scheme should be kept since it would result in more efficient inserts/deletes (assume that there is no need to worry about updates for Name and Something). Would that make sense? I think the second indexing method would be better since it means one less index needs to be maintained. I would appreciate any insight into this specific example or directing me to more info on maintenance of clustered indexes.

    Read the article

  • Clustered Index

    - by Derek Dieter
    The clustered index on a table can be defined as: the sort order for how the data for the table is actually stored. Being that the clustered index is the actual data itself, you cannot have two clustered indexes. You can however have many non clustered indexes. These non clustered indexes are [...]

    Read the article

  • SQL Server Clustered Index: (Physical) Data Page Order

    - by scherand
    I am struggling understanding what a clustered index in SQL Server 2005 is. I read the MSDN article Clustered Index Structures (among other things) but I am still unsure if I understand it correctly. The (main) question is: what happens if I insert a row (with a "low" key) into a table with a clustered index? The above mentioned MSDN article states: The pages in the data chain and the rows in them are ordered on the value of the clustered index key. And Using Clustered Indexes for example states: For example, if a record is added to the table that is close to the beginning of the sequentially ordered list, any records in the table after that record will need to shift to allow the record to be inserted. Does this mean that if I insert a row with a very "low" key into a table that already contains a gazillion rows literally all rows are physically shifted on disk? I cannot believe that. This would take ages, no? Or is it rather (as I suspect) that there are two scenarios depending on how "full" the first data page is. A) If the page has enough free space to accommodate the record it is placed into the existing data page and data might be (physically) reordered within that page. B) If the page does not have enough free space for the record a new data page would be created (anywhere on the disk!) and "linked" to the front of the leaf level of the B-Tree? This would then mean the "physical order" of the data is restricted to the "page level" (i.e. within a data page) but not to the pages residing on consecutive blocks on the physical hard drive. The data pages are then just linked together in the correct order. Or formulated in an alternative way: if SQL Server needs to read the first N rows of a table that has a clustered index it can read data pages sequentially (following the links) but these pages are not (necessarily) block wise in sequence on disk (so the disk head has to move "randomly"). How close am I? :)

    Read the article

  • Does clustered index on foreign key column increase join performance vs non-clustered ?

    - by alpav
    In many places it's recommended that clustered indexes are better utilized when used to select range of rows using BETWEEN statement. When I select joining by foreign key field in such a way that this clustered index is used, I guess, that clusterization should help too because range of rows is being selected even though they all have same clustered key value and BETWEEN is not used. Considering that I care only about that one select with join and nothing else, am I wrong with my guess ?

    Read the article

  • Changing an MSSQL clustered index field from containing "random" GUIDs to sequential GUIDs - how wil

    - by Eyvind
    We have an MSSQL database in which all the primary keys are GUIDs (uniqueidentifiers). The GUIDs are produced on the client (in C#), and we are considering changing the client to generate sequential (comb) GUIDs instead of just using Guid.NewGuid(), to improve db performance. If we do this, how will this affect installations that already have data with "random" GUIDs as clustered PKs? Can anything be done (short of changing all the PK values) to rebuild the indexes to avoid further fragmentation and bad insert performance? Please give explicit and detailed answers if you can; I am a C# developer at heart and not all too familiar with all the intricacies of SQL Server. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Covering Index versus Clustered Index (Database Index)

    - by Mestika
    Hi, I'm working on a database system and it's indexes, but I'm having a really hard time seing the clear difference between a covering index and a clustered index. I've googled my way around but hasn't got a clear cut answer on: What is the differences between the two types of indexes When do I use Covering index and when do I use Clustered index. I hope someone can explain it to me in a almost children-like answer :-) Sincerely Mestika By the way, I'm using IBM DB2 version 9.7

    Read the article

  • New record may be written twice in clusterd index structure

    - by Cupidvogel
    As per the article at Microsoft, under the Test 1: INSERT Performance section, it is written that For the table with the clustered index, only a single write operation is required since the leaf nodes of the clustered index are data pages (as explained in the section Clustered Indexes and Heaps), whereas for the table with the nonclustered index, two write operations are required—one for the entry into the index B-tree and another for the insert of the data itself. I don't think that is necessarily true. Clustered Indexes are implemented through B+ tree structures, right? If you look at at this article, which gives a simple example of inserting into a B+ tree, we can see that when 8 is initially inserted, it is written only once, but then when 5 comes in, it is written to the root node as well (thus written twice, albeit not initially at the time of insertion). Also when 8 comes in next, it is written twice, once at the root and then at the leaf. So won't it be correct to say, that the number of rewrites in case of a clustered index is much less compared to a NIC structure (where it must occur every time), instead of saying that rewrite doesn't occur in CI at all?

    Read the article

  • When SQL Server Nonclustered Indexes Are Faster Than Clustered Indexes

    SQL Server Clustered indexes can have enormous implications for performance of operations on a table. But are there times when a SQL Server non-clustered index would perform better than a clustered index for the same operation? Are there any trade-offs to consider? Check out this tip to learn more. Deployment Manager 2 is now free!The new version includes tons of new features and we've launched a completely free Starter Edition! Get Deployment Manager here

    Read the article

  • Setting clustered index in nhibernate

    - by SolBadguy
    Hi. I'm trying to define a property that is not the id as a clustered index in nhibernate, yet I've found no way of doing this. Could anyone give me a pointer of how this is done, or it is something not currently available in nhibernate? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Uninstalling a SQL Server Clustered Instance

    I have installed and uninstalled several instances of SQL Server in the past. Today, I need to uninstall a SQL Server 2008 R2 clustered instance. I have never uninstalled a clustered instance of SQL Server before. Can you provide a how-to guide to uninstall a clustered instance of SQL Server 2008 R2? NEW! SQL Monitor 2.0Monitor SQL Server Central's servers withRed Gate's new SQL Monitor.No installation required. Find out more.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Identify Numbers of Non Clustered Index on Tables for Entire Database

    - by pinaldave
    Here is the script which will give you numbers of non clustered indexes on any table in entire database. SELECT COUNT(i.TYPE) NoOfIndex, [schema_name] = s.name, table_name = o.name FROM sys.indexes i INNER JOIN sys.objects o ON i.[object_id] = o.[object_id] INNER JOIN sys.schemas s ON o.[schema_id] = s.[schema_id] WHERE o.TYPE IN ('U') AND i.TYPE = 2 GROUP BY s.name, o.name ORDER BY schema_name, table_name Here is the small story behind why this script was needed. I recently went to meet my friend in his office and he introduced me to his colleague in office as someone who is an expert in SQL Server Indexing. I politely said I am yet learning about Indexing and have a long way to go. My friend’s colleague right away said – he had a suggestion for me with related to Index. According to him he was looking for a script which will count all the non clustered on all the tables in the database and he was not able to find that on SQLAuthority.com. I was a bit surprised as I really do not remember all the details about what I have written so far. I quickly pull up my phone and tried to look for the script on my custom search engine and he was correct. I never wrote a script which will count all the non clustered indexes on tables in the whole database. Excessive indexing is not recommended in general. If you have too many indexes it will definitely negatively affect your performance. The above query will quickly give you details of numbers of indexes on tables on your entire database. You can quickly glance and use the numbers as reference. Please note that the number of the index is not a indication of bad indexes. There is a lot of wisdom I can write here but that is not the scope of this blog post. There are many different rules with Indexes and many different scenarios. For example – a table which is heap (no clustered index) is often not recommended on OLTP workload (here is the blog post to identify them), drop unused indexes with careful observation (here is the script for it), identify missing indexes and after careful testing add them (here is the script for it). Even though I have given few links here it is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow only above four advices your ship may still sink. Those who wants to learn the subject in depth can watch the videos here after logging in. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL Index, SQL Query, SQL Server, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER Understanding ALTER INDEX ALL REBUILD with Disabled Clustered Index

    This blog is in response to the ongoing communication with the reader who had earlier asked the question of SQL SERVER Disable Clustered Index and Data Insert. The same reader has asked me the difference between ALTER INDEX ALL REBUILD and ALTER INDEX REBUILD along with disabled clustered index. Instead of writing a big [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER Disable Clustered Index and Data Insert

    Earlier today I received following email. “Dear Pinal, [Removed unrelated content] We looked at your script and found out that in your script of disabling indexes, you have only included non-clustered index during the bulk insert and missed to disabled all the clustered index. Our DBA[name removed] has changed your script a bit and included [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Table index design

    - by Swoosh
    I would like to add index(s) to my table. I am looking for general ideas how to add more indexes to a table. Other than the PK clustered. I would like to know what to look for when I am doing this. So, my example: This table (let's call it TASK table) is going to be the biggest table of the whole application. Expecting millions records. IMPORTANT: massive bulk-insert is adding data in this table table has 27 columns: (so far, and counting :D ) int x 9 columns = id-s varchar x 10 columns bit x 2 columns datetime x 5 columns INT COLUMNS all of these are INT ID-s but from tables that are usually smaller than Task table (10-50 records max), example: Status table (with values like "open", "closed") or Priority table (with values like "important", "not so important", "normal") there is also a column like "parent-ID" (self - ID) join: all the "small" tables have PK, the usual way ... clustered STRING COLUMNS there is a (Company) column (string!) that is something like "5 characters long all the time" and every user will be restricted using this one. If in Task there are 15 different "Companies" the logged in user would only see one. So there's always a filter on this one. Might be a good idea to add an index to this column? DATE COLUMNS I think they don't index these ... right? Or can / should be?

    Read the article

  • How to change the primary key to be non-clustered?

    - by AngryHacker
    Part-time reluctant DBA here. I want to change an existing primary key index from clustered to non-clustered. And the syntax is escaping me. This is how it's scripted out right now. ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Config] WITH NOCHECK ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_Config] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [ConfigID] ) ON [PRIMARY] I am not seeing an ALTER CONSTRAINT statement in the online docs.

    Read the article

  • Which non-clustered index should I use?

    - by Junior Mayhé
    Here I am studying nonclustered indexes on SQL Server Management Studio. I've created a table with more than 1 million records. This table has a primary key. CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Customers]( [CustomerId] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [CustomerName] [varchar](100) NOT NULL, [Deleted] [bit] NOT NULL, [Active] [bit] NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT [PK_Customers] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ( [CustomerId] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] ) ON [PRIMARY] This is the query I'll be using to see what execution plan is showing: SELECT CustomerName FROM Customers Well, executing this command with no additional non-clustered index, it leads the execution plan to show me: I/O cost = 3.45646 Operator cost = 4.57715 Now I'm trying to see if it's possible to improve performance, so I've created a non-clustered index for this table: 1) First non-clustered index CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_CustomerID_CustomerName] ON [dbo].[Customers] ( [CustomerId] ASC, [CustomerName] ASC )WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] GO Executing again the select against Customers table, the execution plan shows me: I/O cost = 2.79942 Operator cost = 3.92001 It seems better. Now I've deleted this just created non-clustered index, in order to create a new one: 2) First non-clustered index CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_CustomerIDIncludeCustomerName] ON [dbo].[Customers] ( [CustomerId] ASC ) INCLUDE ( [CustomerName]) WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY] GO With this new non-clustered index, I've executed the select statement again and the execution plan shows me the same result: I/O cost = 2.79942 Operator cost = 3.92001 So, which non-clustered index should I use? Why the costs are the same on execution plan for I/O and Operator? Am I doing something wrong or this is expected? thank you

    Read the article

  • Oracle Database 11gR2: Building an ASM Clustered File System (ACFS)

    Oracle Database 11g Release 2 (11gR2) integrates a new ASM-based file system -- the ASM Clustered File System -- that offers the ability to store files other than database specific files like online redo logs, control files, and datafiles. This article demonstrates how to install and configure a new Oracle 11g Release 2 (11gR2) Grid Infrastructure home as the basis for the majority of these grid computing features.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >