I have 5 million rows of table, and going to create Non Clustered Index for Datetime values column. Creating Non clustered Index on Datetime value column will affect performance or not.
View 4 Replies
Dear All.
We had Teradata 4700 SMP. We have moved data from TD to MS_SQL SERVER 2003. records are 19.65 Millions.
table is >> Order_Dtl
Columns are:-
Client_ID varchar 10
Order_ID varchar 50
Order_Sub_ID decimal
.....
...
..
.
Pk is (ClientID+OrderId+OrderSubID)
Web Base application or PDA devices use to initiate the order from all over the country. The issue is this table is not Partioned but good HP with 30 GB RAM is installed. this is main table that receive 18,0000 hits or more. All brokers and users are using this table to see the status of their order.
The always search by OrderID, or ClientID or order_SubNo, or enter any two like (Client_ID+Order_Sub_ID) or any combination.
Query takes to much time when ever server receive more querys. some orther indexes are also created on the same table like (OrderDate, OrdCreate Date and Status)
My Question are:-
Q1. IF Person "A" query to DB on Client_ID, then what Index will use ? (If any one do Query on any two combination like Client_ID+Order_ID, So what index will be uesd.? How does MS-SQL SERVER deal with these kind of issues.?
Q2. If i create 3 more indexes on ClientID, ORderID and OrdersubID. will this improve the performance of query.if person "A" search record on orderNo so what index will be used. (Mind it their would be 3 seprate indexes for Each PK columns) and composite-Clustered index is also available.?
Q3. I want to check what indexes has been used? on what search?
Q4. How can i check what table was populated when, or last date of update (DML)?
My Limitation is i Dont Create a Partioned table. I dont have permission to do it.
In Teradata we had more than 4 tb record of CRM data with no issue. i am not new baby in db line but not expert in sql server 2003.
I am thank u to all who read or reply.
Arshad
Manager Database
Esoulconsultancy.com
(Teradata Master)
10g OCP
have a 3rd party app (can't change) which has some bad sql. I have a table that is used in the sql which if I put a clustered (I had an index on the fields in the sql but it would ignore and table scan) will use and stop doing table scan. this is a million row table that is growing. the data going in is pretty mich insert only. I have a separate array and file group which I have moved indexes to last year. 2 questions
1. If I would make a clustered index on the separate RAID and file group, doesn't the table need to go with it. I thought the clustered index and table had to be on same File Group
2. If I do this anyone see any issues with moving this table and index on this file group
Hi Guys,
I have a SQL 2000 sp3a server on Windows 2000 sp4. Running dual proc server with hyper threading enabled, 3gb memory attached to a HP EVA 5000 SAN.
One of the tables is 67gb and contains 140,000,000 rows. Recently someone dropped the clustered indexe so i`m trying to put it back (i've dropped the non clustered indexes as no point leaving them there whilst clustered builds).
The problem i am having is the rebuild is taking forever!! It ran for 23 hours before someone rebooted the server (!). The database is currently recovering from the reboot but i need to work out what is causing the appalling performance so i can get the index rebuilt. There are no reported hardware problems.....
There are multiple file groups involved and i found i was getting an extent allocation rate of 1.5 extents a second and same for deallocation.
Any advice on how to trouble shoot this?
Hi,
I have created a very simple table. Here is the script:
if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where id = object_id(N'[dbo].[IndexTable]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id, N'IsUserTable') = 1)
drop table [dbo].[IndexTable]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[IndexTable] (
[Id] [int] NOT NULL ,
[Code] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [CusteredOnCode] ON [dbo].[IndexTable]([Id]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[IndexTable] ADD
CONSTRAINT [PrimaryKeyOnId] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
(
[Id]
) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
The records that i added are:
Id Code
1 a
2 b
3 aa
4 bb
Now when i query like
Select * from IndexTable
I expect the results as:
Id Code
1 a
3 aa
2 b
4 bb
as i have the clustered index on column Code.
But i m getting the results as:
Id Code
1 a
2 b
3 aa
4 bb
as per the primary key order that is a non clustered index.
Can anyone explain why it is happening?
Thanks
Nitin
Hi, Folks!
I'm receiving Access Violation Error when I'm trying to create a clustered index on a datetime field on a table that have around 4 million records, if I create the index nonclustered, no problem, but clustered the system raise this error!
Any help will be appreciate a lot!
Thanks in advance!
Armando Marrero
Cti. Miami
the query:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WHERE a.AssociationGuid IN (
SELECT ada.DataAssociationGuid FROM AssociationDataAssociation ada
WHERE ada.AssociationGuid = '568B40AD-5133-4237-9F3C-F8EA9D472662')
takes 30-60 seconds to run on my machine, due to a clustered index scan on our an index on asset [about half a million rows]. For this particular association less than 50 rows are returned.
expanding the inner select into a list of guids the query runs instantly:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WHERE a.AssociationGuid IN (
'0F9C1654-9FAC-45FC-9997-5EBDAD21A4B4',
'52C616C0-C4C5-45F4-B691-7FA83462CA34',
'C95A6669-D6D1-460A-BC2F-C0F6756A234D')
It runs instantly because of doing a clustered index seek [on the same index as the previous query] instead of a scan. The index in question IX_Asset_AssociationGuid is a nonclustered index on Asset.AssociationGuid.
The tables involved:
Asset, represents an asset. Primary key is AssetGuid, there is an index/FK on Asset.AssociationGuid. The asset table has 28 columns or so...
Association, kind of like a place, associations exist in a tree where one association can contain any number of child associations. Each association has a ParentAssociationGuid pointing to its parent. Only leaf associations contain assets.
AssociationDataAssociation, a table consisting of two columns, AssociationGuid, DataAssociationGuid. This is a table used to quickly find leaf associations [DataAssociationGuid] beneath a particular association [AssociationGuid]. In the above case the inner select () returns 3 rows.
I'd include .sqlplan files or screenshots, but I don't see a way to attach them.
I understand I can specify to use the index manually [and this also runs instantly], but for such a simple query it is peculiar it is necesscary. This is the query with the index specified manually:
SELECT a.AssetGuid, a.Name, a.LocationGuid
FROM Asset a WITH (INDEX (IX_Asset_AssociationGuid)) WHERE
a.AssociationGuid IN (
SELECT ada.DataAssociationGuid FROM AssociationDataAssociation ada
WHERE ada.AssociationGuid = '568B40AD-5133-4237-9F3C-F8EA9D472662')
To repeat/clarify my question, why might this not be doing a clustered index seek with the first query?
I am trying to create a clustered index on a View of a table that has an xml datatype. This indexing ran for two days and still did not complete. I tried to leave it running while continuing to use the database, but the SELECT statements where executing too slowly and the DML statements where Timing out. I there a way to control the server/cpu resources used by an indexing process. How can I determine the completion percentage or the indexing process. How can I make indexing the view with the xml data type take less time?
The table definition is displayed below.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[AuditLogDetails](
[ID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[RecordID] [int] NOT NULL,
[TableName] [varchar](64) NOT NULL,
[Modifications] [xml] NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT [PK_AuditLogDetails] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[ID] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
) ON [PRIMARY]
The view definition is displayed below.
ALTER VIEW [dbo].[vwAuditLogDetails] WITH SCHEMABINDING
AS
SELECT P.ID,D.RecordID, dbo.f_GetModification(D.Modifications,P.ID) AS Modifications
FROM dbo.AuditLogParent P
INNER JOIN dbo.AuditLogDetails AS D ON dbo.f_GetIfModificationExist(D.Modifications,P.ID)=1
The definition for UDF f_GetModification
ALTER function [dbo].[f_GetModification]( @Modifications xml,@PID uniqueidentifier )
returns xml
with schemabinding
as
begin
declare @pidstr varchar(100)
SET @pidstr = LOWER(CONVERT(varchar(100), @PID))
return @Modifications.query('/Modifications/modification[@ID eq sql:variable("@pidstr")]')
end
The definition for UDF f_GetIfModificationExist
ALTER function [dbo].[f_GetIfModificationExist]( @Modifications xml,@PID uniqueidentifier )
returns Bit
with schemabinding
as
begin
declare @pidstr varchar(100)
SET @pidstr = LOWER(CONVERT(varchar(100), @PID))
return @Modifications.exist('/Modifications/modification[@ID eq sql:variable("@pidstr")]')
end
The Statement to create the index is below.
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [IX_ID_RecordID] ON [dbo].[vwAuditLogDetails]
(
[ID] ASC,
[RecordID] ASC
)WITH (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]
Users can approach their userprofile on my site using: www.mysite.com/name=peterName is a unique value within my database (db type: nvarchar(50))Now, I have created a clustered index on the username column.However, IMHO its faster to create a clustered index on the (also unique) usercode column since that is of type int.BUT since a user can approach my site based on username I feel that I HAVE to live with this setback in performance....Is that true or is there a better way to solve this issue?
View 1 Replies View RelatedIs it always the best practice to have the partition column also as the column for clustered index?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a database where records are Inserted by an external process.
There is no updating or deleting of the data once inserted. The table in
question has a Clustered Index on the Machine_ID (integer) (data is from
manufacturing processes). Each record bears a start and end time. Most
queries involve the Machine, a time span (start time between to points in
time), the Downtime Cause, and the Running Mode.
I want to add an index on the Start Time, the Downtime Cause, and the
Runtime Mode.
My question is: should this new index also contain the Machine_id column
or does the existence of the Clustered Index already on that column negate
its need in the new index?
RC - Dedicated to only creating original mistakes!
Want to check my thinking with you folks...
I have a table with a clustered composite index, consisting of 3 columns, which together form a unique key. For illustration, the columns are C1, C2 & C3.
Counts of distinct values for columns are C1 425, C2 300,000 & C3 4,000,000
C3 is effectively number of seconds since 01/01/1970.
The usage of the table is typically, insert a row, do something else, then update it.
Currently, the index columns are ordered C3,C1,C2. Fill factor of 90%.
My thinking is that this composite index is better ordered C1,C2,C3.
My reasoning is that having C3 as the leading column, biases all the inserts towards one side of the indexes underlying B-tree, causing page splits. Also, there'll be a bunch of "wasted" space across the tree, as the values going into C3 only ever get bigger (like an identity), so the space due to the fill factor in lower values never gets used.
Welcome your thoughts.
I need to find out all the tables in database, which has FK columns and don’t have any Non-clustered index on them.
View 11 Replies View RelatedI've been asked to look at using Clustered Columnstore indexes for one of my tables. The table contains about 5 million records with about 50 columns. The max field size is a NVarchar(MAX) with max field length currently of about 4k characters. It's only about a gigabyte's worth of data. The table is about 50% R/W operations. Currently, we have multiple indexes with no clustered index due to some performance issues that happened in the past. I've been attempting to determine if it's even really worth it to switch over. I feel that the table is still fairly small with minimal columns and don't believe there will be any noticeable improvement over traditional indexing.
View 3 Replies View RelatedI created composite clustered index key based on Gender and Salary column
The Query executed Successfully and <g class="gr_ gr_135 gr-alert gr_tiny gr_spell undefined ContextualSpelling multiReplace" data-gr-id="135" id="135">i</g>
got composite index key id Gender(-), Salary I <g class="gr_ gr_310 gr-alert gr_gramm undefined Grammar only-ins replaceWithoutSep" data-gr-id="310" id="310">want</g> know why Gender(-) display like this?
And Gender is <g class="gr_ gr_391 gr-alert gr_spell undefined ContextualSpelling ins-del multiReplace" data-gr-id="391" id="391">nvarchar</g> (20)
I would like to put a Clustered Index on a date column in a current heap, but one question/concern.This heap every month has thousands of rows deleted and even more added later. How much of an issue will this cause the Clustered Index as far as page splits? I was thinking Fill Factor of 70%.I would normally just test and still will on Dev box, but my Dev box is much smaller than production as far as power.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have created NONCLUSTERED index on table but my report is taking more time that's why i created columnstore NONCLUSTERED index on the same table but i have one query, if any table have row and column level index(same columns in index) . Which index query will consider.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI am extremely new to database design, and I ran into a problem that I know comes up often, however has many opinions...
Basically I have a table that is going to have 50+ columns. The natural key on this table is actually 8 columns wide, 4 of them being Varchar columns by default. (varchar(50)'s).
I have added an identity column, (1,1) to the table, however I put the clustered index on the 8 natural keys... My plan is to rebuild the clustered index once nightly when the system isn't in use (after 7 pm).
I know others would say it would be better to have the clustered key on the 1,1 column and then add indexes on the other 8 fields... However I don't quite understand why honestly...
Every single query against this table will use the 8 columns, and will NOT use the Identity column (1,1) because they are calls from other systems that do not know the Identity column....
Therefore if your database is set up for query speed, and every single query has to have a value for 8 columns to get a valid result, does it make sense to put a clustered index over the 8 columns?
If not why? Why is putting a clustered index on an identity column (that will literally never be used in a query) a better solution?
How can we get the list of clustered columnstore index in a database in sql server 2014
View 3 Replies View RelatedI am trying to use an indexed view to allow for aggregations to be generated more quickly in my test data warehouse. The Fact Table I am creating the indexed view on is a partitioned clustered columnstore index.
I have created a view with the following code:
ALTER view dbo.FactView
with schemabinding
as
select local_date_key, meter_key, unit_key, read_type_key, sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [s_read_value], sum(isnull(cost,0)) as [s_cost]
, sum(isnull(easy_target_value,0)) as [s_easy_target_value], sum(isnull(hard_target_value,0)) as [s_hard_target_value]
, sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [a_read_value], sum(isnull(temperature,0)) as [a_temp], sum(isnull(co2,0)) as [s_co2]
, sum(isnull(easy_target_co2,0)) as [s_easy_target_co2]
, sum(isnull(hard_target_co2,0)) as [s_hard_target_co2], sum(isnull(temp1,0)) as [a_temp1], sum(isnull(temp2,0)) as [a_temp2]
, sum(isnull(volume,0)) as [s_volume], count_big(*) as [freq]
from dbo.FactConsumptionPart
group by local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key
I then created an index on the view as follows:
create unique clustered index IDX_FV on factview (local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key)
I then followed this up by running some large calculations that required use of the aggregation functionality on the main fact table, grouping by the clustered index columns and only returning averages and sums that are available in the view, but it still uses the underlying table to perform the aggregations, rather than the view I have created. Running an equivalent query on the view, then it takes 75% less time to query the indexed view directly, to using the fact table. I think the expected behaviour was that in SQL Server Enterprise or Developer edition (I am using developer edition), then the fact table should have used the indexed view. what I might be missing, for the query not to be using the indexed view?
We are going to use SQL Sever change tracking. The problem is that some of our tables, which are to be tracked, have no primary keys. There are only unique clustered indexes. The question is what is the best way to turn on change tracking for these tables in our circumstances.
View 4 Replies View RelatedI desire to have a clustered index on a column other than the Primary Key. I have a few junction tables that I may want to alter, create table, or ...
I have practiced with an example table that is not really a junction table. It is just a table I decided to use for practice. When I execute the script, it seems to do everything I expect. For instance, there are not any constraints but there are indexes. The PK is the correct column.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[tblNotificationMgr](
[NotificationMgrKey] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
[ContactKey] [int] NOT NULL,
[EventTypeEnum] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[code]....
I have created two tables. table one has the following fields,
Id -> unique clustered index.
table two has the following fields,
Tid -> unique clustered index
Id -> foreign key of table one(id).
Now I have created primary key for the table one column 'id'. It's created as "nonclustered, unique, primary key located on PRIMARY". Primary key create clustered index default. since unique clustered index existed in table one, it has created "Nonclustered primary key".
My Question is, What is the difference between "clustered, unique, primary key" and "nonclustered, unique, primary key"? Is there any performance impact between these?
I have large table with 10million records. I would like to create clustered or non-clustered index.
What is the quick way to create? I have tried once and it took more than 10 min.
please help.
I'm having a hard time getting one of my tables to use a non clustered index that I have on a DateTime column.
A sample version of the table is something like this
CREATE TABLE Appointments
(
ID INT NOT NULL,
AppointmentDate DateTime NOT NULL
)
with a clustered primary key on ID and a nonclustered key on AppointmentDate.
This production table has over 1million rows and the problem I have is this:
If I do a SELECT * FROM Appointments where AppointmentDate >= '20060701' AND AppointmentDate < '20060702' the Non clustered index on the AppointmentDate column works fine. i.e. I'm returning all appointments for the 1st of July.
Now if I run the exact same query using datetime parameters, a Clustered index scan is performed instead of an index seek.
DECLARE @AppDate DateTime
SET @AppDate = '20060701'
SELECT * FROM Appointments WHERE AppointmentDate >= @AppDate and AppointmentDate < DATEADD(day, 1, @AppDate)
Any ideas why it would do this?
Hi there, I have a table that has an IDENTITY column and it is the PK of this table. By default SQL Server creates a unique clustered index on the PK, but this isn't what I wanted. I want to make a regular unique index on the column so I can make a clustered index on a different column.
If I try to uncheck the Clustered index option in EM I get a dialog that says "Cannot convert a clustered index to a nonclustered index using the DROP_EXISTING option.". If I simply try to delete the index I get the following "An explicit DROP INDEX is not allowed on index 'index name'. It is being used for PRIMARY KEY constraint enforcement.
So do I have to drop the PK constraint now? How does that affect all the tables that have FK relationships to this table?
Thanks
Hi everybody!
I just ran the Database Engine Tuning Advisor on a relative complex query to find out if a new index might help, and in fact it found a combination that should give a performance gain of 94%. Fair enough to try that.
What I wonder about: The index I should create contains 4 columns, the last of them being the Primary Key column of the table, which is also my clustered index for the table. It is an identity integer btw.
I think I remember that ANY index does include the clustered one as lookup into the data, so having it listed to the list of columns will not help. It might at worst add another duplicate 4 bytes to each index entry.
Right? Wrong? Keep the column in the index, or remove it since it is included implicit anyway?
Thanks for suggestions!
Ralf
I am trying to create a sample table in the Azure SQL Data warehouse but its giving me a syntax error Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'CLUSTERED'.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[FactInternetSales]
( [ProductKey] int NOT NULL
, [OrderDateKey] int NOT NULL
, [CustomerKey] int NOT NULL
, [PromotionKey] int NOT NULL
[Code] ....
what's the correct syntax
I have a table<table1> with 804668 records primary on table1(col1,col2,col3,col4)
Have created non-clustered index on <table1>(col2,col3,col4),to solve a performance issue.(which is a join involving another table with 1.2 million records).Seems to be working great.
I want to know whether this will slow down,insert and update on the <table1>?
Hi everyone,
When we create a clustered index firstly, and then is it advantageous to create another index which is nonclustered ??
In my opinion, yes it is. Because, since we use clustered index first, our rows are sorted and so while using nonclustered index on this data file, finding adress of the record on this sorted data is really easier than finding adress of the record on unsorted data, is not it ??
Thanks
I hope i'm in the right place, but thanks anyway....
Actually i have 2 questions (regarding sql-server Indices/Keys):
1) I have an index, which is consisted of 4 columns.
I've read elsewhere that this index functions (as well) as an index (single column
index) on the first column of this multi-column index.
Does this mean that if i'd like to have (in addition) Indices on all of the 4 columns
seperately i need to define only 3???
2) I have a unique key consisted of multiple columns.
I'd like to save an index to this combination of columns as well (to speed up
things in DB...).
Does the definition of a multiple-columns key free me from defining the multiple-
columns index???
can anyone explain the main diference between Keys and Indices???
I hope i'm in the right place, but thanks anyway....
Actually i have 2 questions (regarding sql-server Indices/Keys):
1) I have an index, which is consisted of 4 columns.
I've read elsewhere that this index functions (as well) as an index (single column
index) on the first column of this multi-column index.
Does this mean that if i'd like to have (in addition) Indices on all of the 4 columns
seperately i need to define only 3???
2) I have a unique key consisted of multiple columns.
I'd like to save an index to this combination of columns as well (to speed up
things in DB...).
Does the definition of a multiple-columns key free me from defining the multiple-
columns index???
can anyone explain the main diference between Keys and Indices???
thanks,
Ran Kizi
How can I calculate a DateTime column by merging values from a Date column and only the time part of a DateTime column?
View 5 Replies View Related