Can I use index seek and still keep 'like' 'or' functionality for the following statement?
--prepare test table
create table entity (Id int identity(1,1), FamName varchar(200), LastName varchar(200))
go
create clustered index entity_id on entity (id)
go
create nonclustered index entity_lastName on entity (lastName)
go
insert into entity select famName,FirstName from table
--test index
declare @LastName varchar(10)
set @LastName = 'a'
select FamName
from entity
where @LastName is null or LastName like @LastName --clustered index scan
please explain the differences btween this logical & phisicall operations that we can see therir graphical icons in execution plan tab in Management Studio
I have created a nolock view off a table to prevent locks. I have users coming in through MS Access that have switched their queries to run against the views. Now we are noticing that queries that used to run as a clustered index seek against the table are running as a clustered index scan against the table and performance in the queries has dropped.
Is there any way that the same query that hits the view instead of the table can be made to run faster or at least use the index seek?
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?
If you display the execution plan and run the following:SET STATISTICS IO ONgoSELECT ProductID, SupplierIDFROM ProductsWHERE SupplierID = 1I don't understand how come there is noBookmark Lookup operation happening to get theProductID?I only see an Index Seek happening on SupplierID.There is no composite index SupplierID + ProductIDso what am I not understanding here?Thank you
I've developed the application to fetch the data from the mdf file by passing the index field and using the command IRowsetIndex()::Seek. Consider TableExample with Columns A,B,C,D and index Index1 with column A and Index2 with column B,C,D. Its working fine when index1 is passed for the indexvalue.But when i pass index2 of the same table,its throwing the error as BADINDEX.
I'm passing the correct keyvalues in the Seek command also.
I have an MS Access 2003 database from which I want to seek a specific record in a SQL Server Express 2005 database. I can connect to the table and get a recordcount but the recordset.supports (adseek) and recordset.Supports(adIndex) both return false. Any suggestions? Specific code I'm using is as follows:
Dim cnxn As ADODB.Connection Dim strCnxn As String Set cnxn = New ADODB.Connection cnxn.Provider = "sqloledb" strCnxn = "Data Source=SERVERSQLEXPRESS2005;Initial Catalog=RAMPSQL;Integrated Security='SSPI';"
cnxn.Open strCnxn
Set rsWSC = New ADODB.Recordset rsWSC.CursorLocation = adUseServer strSQL = "DailyData" rsWSC.Open strSQL, cnxn, adOpenKeyset, adLockReadOnly, adCmdTableDirect
I have a frontend Access and backend SQL works fine but when i in my customer table seek in name it takes very very long time . I use ODBC to my connection
The script below may be use to find out what stored procedure uses a specified column from any of the table. This could be helpful in cases you have change a field name of a table and want to find out what stored procedure uses that column.
From what I've read in the docs, ado.net currently supports opening sqlserver ce tables in table-direct mode and performing Seek operations on them(using SqlCeDataReader), but not on the full-blown sql server. Is this(will this be) still true with ado.net 2.0 & sql server 2005?
I am getting error 0x80040E25 when I try to call seek after update on a Recordset opened as (adOpenStatic, adLockOptimistic, adCmdTableDirect)
9 - (13.250) - <2> - *** error in .DbRecordset.cpp, line 908 10 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERRORS FOR pRs = 200a420, seek, err=-2147217883(80040e25) 11 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERROR: E R R O R 1 of 1. 12 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERROR: DESCRIPTION: All HROWs must be released before new ones can be obtained. [,,,,,]. 13 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERROR: NUMBER: 80040E25 14 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERROR: NATIVE_ERROR: 0 15 - (13.250) - <2> - ADO_ERROR: SOURCE: Microsoft SQL Server 2005 Mobile Edition OLE DB Provider
I registered SQL Mobile 3.0 dlls using regsvr32.exe so now I can connect to SQLCE3.0 databases on desktop using plain ADO with such connection string _T("Provider=Microsoft.SQLSERVER.MOBILE.OLEDB.3.0; Data Source=") + name of the file
I have not asked this question before as it did not make sense -> there was no official SQLCE3.0 support on desktop. Now, since SQL CE is promiced to be supported on desktop as SQL/E I decided to ask.
I've been having some trouble getting a single-column "varchar(5)" field to reliably use a table seek instead of a table scan. The production table in this case contains 25 million rows. As impressive as it is to scan 25 million rows in 35 seconds, the query should run much faster.
Typically, this table is accessed with a query that includes:
SELECT ... FROM SummaryTable WHERE ixZIP IN (SELECT ZipCode FROM @ZipCodesForMO)
This query insists on using a table scan. I've tried WITH (FORCESEEK) for example, but that just makes the query fail.
As I've investigated this issue I also tried:
SELECT * FROM Summaries WHERE ZipCode IN ('xxxxx', 'xxxxx', 'xxxxx')
When I run this query with 64 or fewer (actual, valid) ZIP codes, the query uses a table seek.But when I give it 65 or more ZIP codes it uses a table scan.
To summarize, the production query always uses a table scan, and when I specify 65 or more ZIP codes the query also uses a table scan. I'm wondering if the data type of the indexed column (Latin1_General_100_BIN2) is somehow the problem. I'll likely try converting the ZIP codes to an integer to see what happens.
I am using Full Text Index to index emails stored in BLOB column in a table. Index process parses stored emails, and, if there is one or more files attached to the email these documents get indexed too. In result when I'm querying the full text index for a word or phrase I am getting reference to the email containing the word of phrase if interest if the word was used in the email body OR if it was used in any document attached to the email.
How to distinguish in a Full Text query that the result came from an embedded document rather than from "main" document? Or if that's not possible how to disable indexing of embedded documents?
My goal is either to give a user an option if he or she wants to search emails (email bodies only) OR emails AND documents attached to them, or at least clearly indicate in the returned result the real source where the word or phrase has been found.
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.
My SSIS package is running very slow taking so much time to execute, One task is taking 2hr for inserting 100k records, i have disabled unused index still it is taking time.I am rebuilding/Refreshing indexes and stats once in month if i try to execute on daily basis will it improve my SSIS Package performance?Â
hello friends i have table1 and 200 coulumn of table1 :) i have 647.600 records. i entered my records to table1 with for step to code lines in one day :) i select category1 category2 and category3 with select code but i have just one index.. it is productnumber and it is primarykey..So my select code lines is so slow.. it is 7-9 second.. how can i select in 0.1 second ? Should i create index for category1 and category2 and category3 ? But i dont know create index.. My select code lines is below.. Could you learn me and show me index for it ?? or Could you learn me and show me fast Select code lines and index or etc ??? Also my search code line have a dangerous releated to attaching table1 with hackers :) cheersi send 3 value of treview1 node and childnode and child.childnode to below page.aspx :) Protected Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load If Not Me.IsPostBack Then If Request("TextBox1") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox1.Text = Request("TextBox1") End If If Request("TextBox2") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox2.Text = Request("TextBox2") End If If Request("TextBox3") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox3.Text = Request("TextBox3") End If End If Dim searchword As String If Request("TextBox3") = "" And Request("TextBox2") = "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "'" End If If Request("TextBox3") = "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "'" End If If Request("TextBox3") <> "" And Request("TextBox2") <> "" And Request("TextBox1") <> "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "' and kategori2= '" & Request("TextBox3") & "'" End If SqlDataSource1.SelectCommand = searchword End Sub
I'm running a merge replication on a sql2k machine to 6 sql2k subscribers. Since a few day's only one of the merge agents fail's with the following error:
The merge process could not retrieve generation information at the 'Subscriber'. The index entry for row ID was not found in index ID 3, of table 357576312, in database 'PBB006'.
All DBCC CHECKDB command's return 0 errors :confused: I'm not sure if the table that's referred to in the message is on the distribution side or the subscribers side? A select * from sysobjects where id=357576312 gives different results on both sides . .
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 ??
I have a clustered index that consists of 3 int columns in this order: DateKey, LocationKey, ItemKey (there are many other columns in this data warehouse table such as quantities, prices, etc.).
Now I want to add a non-clustered index on just one of the other columns, say LocationKey, like this: CREATE INDEX IX_test on TableName (LocationKey)
I understand that the clustered index keys will also be added as key columns to any NC indexes. So, in this case the NC index will also get the other two columns from the clustered index added as key columns. But, in what order will they be added?
Will the resulting index keys on this new NC index effectively be:
LocationKey, DateKey, ItemKey OR LocationKey, ItemKey, DateKey
Do the clustering keys get added to a NC index in the same order as they are defined in the clustered index?
Quick question about the primary purpose of Full Text Index vs. Clustered Index.
The Full Text Index has the purpose of being accessible outside of the database so users can query the tables and columns it needs while being linked to other databases and tables within the SQL Server instance. Is the Full Text Index similar to the global variable in programming where the scope lies outside of the tables and database itself?
I understand the clustered index is created for each table and most likely accessed within the user schema who have access to the database.
Is this correct?
I am kind of confused on why you would use full text index as opposed to clustered index.
One of the major syntax inside the SELECT statment is ..
WHERE FIELDA IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='A') AND WHERE FIELDB IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='B') AND WHERE FIELDC IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='C') AND WHERE FIELDD IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='D') AND WHERE FIELDE IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='E') AND WHERE FIELDF IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='F')
(It's to compare the field content with some user input parameter inside a parameter table... )
I think properly is that the SELECT ... IN is causing much slowness in the sql statement. I have indexed FIELDA , FIELDB, FILEDC etc and those PARAVALUE and PARATYPE in the PARATABLE table. But perfromance is still slow and execution takes >20 seconds for 200000 rows of records.
Do any one know if still any chance to improvide the performance like this?
I'm trying to find whether there is a dmv or system view that can help me see the last time an index was rebuilt or created. Assuming I rebuilt an index using tsql commands (not a job with a history), is there a way to find out the last time that index was rebuilt?
Found out a while back that my facts-tabel has an non-clustered index on its facts_id. In a bunch of procedures an update is executed against a facts_id unfortunately on it's facts-table. I was wondering if changing it into a clustered index is worth the effort / would make sense considering a +110 million facts and re-indexing the other indexes as well? Facts are loaded sequentially, so I would suspect them facts are in the ordered already?
