I 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 RepliesI 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?
I'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 RelatedHow can we get the list of clustered columnstore index in a database in sql server 2014
View 3 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 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.
When we use Partition switch and load the data to a table, can we refresh the indexes for specific partition, so that we don't need to rebuild / refresh for complete is this possible ?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have a table with clustered index on that. I have only 5 columns in that table. Execution plan is showing that Index scan occurred. What are the cause of the Index scan how can we change that to index seek?
I am giving that kind of similar query below
SELECT @ProductID= ProductID FROM Product WITH (NOLOCK) WHERE SalesID= '@salesId' and Product = 'Clothes '
I need to create a Clustered Index (CI) on a very large SQL Server 2012 database table. This table has about approximately 10 billion rows, 500 GB in size. The job ran for about 20 hours into it and then fails with error: "Out of disk space in tempdb". My tempDB size is 1.8TB, but yet it's still not enough.
Here is my script:
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX CI_IndexName
ON TableName(Column1,Column2)
WITH (MAXDOP= 4, ONLINE=ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON, DATA_COMPRESSION=PAGE)
ON sh_WeekDT(Day_DT)
GO
I was under impression that rebuilding index online largely means that the index will remain available for use during rebuild and my procs and query will be able to use it during rebuild. Also my understanding was that table will be locked very briefly while the schema change will be completing.But when I was rebuilding the clustered index online on a large table with some 3 million records, the table got locked and I was not able even to read the data from it for some 5 minutes. Then I cancelled the operation as it was production server and it was one of our main transaction table.
Is rebuilding index online supposed to work this way? The table has no other index.The parameteres I used are:
REBUILD WITH (PAD_INDEX = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON, ONLINE = ON, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, FILLFACTOR = 95)
We have a typical issue with Column Store Index, we have a procedure which does 2 activities - Switch & Reverse Switch
Switch:
1. Fetch the Partitions needed to be switched
2. Switch the data from Main Table to Switch table
2. Disable the Column store on Switch table
SSIS Package:
3. Load data to Switch (Insert / Update)
Reverse Switch:
4. Enable the Switch
5. Switch back the data from Switch table to Main table
Issue: Some time the Column store is not getting disabled, and the package fails complaining try disabling the Column store index and try loading data.
If we re-run the procedure, the column store gets disabled.
I understand that minimal logging can occur on a non clustered indexed heap as long as [URL] ...
*not replicated
*tablock is used
*table is empty
The following test seems to contradict this
In the test I create a non indexed heap, insert some record and check the log, then repeat the test on an indexed heap.
The results suggest that even though the conditions for minimal logging into a indexed heap are met, minimal logging is not happening although it does happen on an non indexed heap. What am I doing wrong?
CREATE DATABASE logtest
GO
USE logtest
GO
CREATE TABLE test (field varchar(100))
GO
CHECKPOINT
[Code] ....
I have a query which is primarily a victim of blocking and a blocker itself for other queries. I studied the plan for this and it shows a 42% cost on CI insert operation. The insert is happening on a table (Table A) that has a PK. This PK is not a running number. It is also a business key (primary key) in another master table (Table B).
My understanding is that the cost is heavy because -
1, this PK is not an incremental number. It could be any number not in a sequence.
2. while inserting into CI, there must be a scan happening to find out the location where the index will be inserted.
How can I reduce the cost?
1. Should I go for partitioning of this table Table A? I am trying to do this but I am not able to find any suitable partition key looking at the JOINS and filter clauses where this table is being used in the applicaiton.
2. Should I introduce a surrogate key (running number) as a primary key so that CI is faster ?
I have a view that joins a dozen tables with a million rows added per year by an application. I want to materialize it. The view is always filtered by date first on reports, then there are a few key transaction keys, but then many other fields required to make each row unique. I don't want to add these columns since they are large, many, not used for sorting or filtering, and may not define uniqueness in a future application design. I need a uniqueifier that is application agnostic. I prefer a bigint. So to store the materialized view ideally for reporting, I want to add the following clustered index to materialize the view:
CREATE unique CLUSTERED INDEX idx1
ON [dbo].[myview](myDate, key1, key2, key3, id bigint identity(1,1) NOT NULL)
And I get this error:
Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 3
Incorrect syntax near 'bigint'.
Can I do what I want? If so, how?
Hi
I was going through the book by Kalen Delaney where she has mentioned the following paragpraph in Chapter 7 (Index Internals):
Many documents describing SQL Server indexes will tell you that the clustered index physically stores the data in sorted order. This can be misleading if you think of physical storage as the disk itself. If a clustered index had to keep the data on the actual disk in a particular order, it could be prohibitively expensive to make changes. If a page got too full and had to be split in two, all the data on all the succeeding pages would have to be moved down. Sorted order in a clustered index simply means that the data page chain is logically in order.
Then I read the book on SQL Server 2000 (on Perf Tuning) by Ken England. He says the clustered index stores data in physical order and any insert means moving the data physically. Also the same statement is echoed on the net by many articles.
What is the truth? How are really clustered index stored? What does physical order in the above statement really mean?
Regards
SanjaySi
I 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 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 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 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?
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
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?
Give a user table ‘MyTable’. How to know whether the table contains a non-unique clustered index by using SQL query?
View 2 Replies View Relatedthe 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 have created a fact table which has unique cluster index as below,
CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [FactSales_SalesID] ON [dbo].[FactSales] (salesid ASC)
WITH (DATA_COMPRESSION = PAGE)
GO
however later when i add CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEXES :
CREATE CLUSTERED COLUMNSTORE INDEX CSI_FactSales
ON dbo.FactSales WITH (DATA_COMPRESSION = COLUMNSTORE)
GO
it prompts error.
Msg 35372, Level 16, State 3, Line 167 You cannot create more than one clustered index on table 'dbo.FactSales'. Consider creating a new clustered index using 'with (drop_existing = on)' option.
What is the best way to forecastestimate space for non-clustered index on a table?
Example :
Table name : Test123
Row : 170000000
Reserved : 18000000 KB
Data : 70000000 KB
Index: 40000000 KB
Note: Test123 already has clustered index and 2 non clustered indexes.
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'd like to create a table that will store different order items. Several order items make up one single order. Order items can have 0 or more children (max depth will never be deeper than one). Order items can have up to 150 attributes/values. The way I think this should be done is using XML column instead of the EAV type of model. My table structure currently looks like this:
* child_order_item_id (PK)
* parent_order_item_id (FK to child_order_item_id)
* order_id (FK to Order table)
* product_id (FK to Product table)
* price
* attribute_XML
How my attribute_XML should look like or how to validate the xml.
I want to know more details about the Clustered Index Delete. Is that Clustered Index Delete in the execution plan is good or bad or we can neglect that cost. Is there any way to avoid that clustered Index delete operator from the execution plan.
View 4 Replies View Related- What are your thoughts on adding clustered index on datetime (createdDate , native GUID) column. The data will be be physically organized in the clustered index allowing range operations to perform its duties. But will the GUID column make any impact ( drawbacks) should it be made part of the clustered key ?
The GUID column will provide the lookup with the required indexes to support.
I created a NC index as suggested by missing index DMV(of course I don't create them blindly). This one seemed to be a useful index but I now see from index usage stats that it only got scanned 50 times in 4 days.No seeks, no lookups. So is it a good idea keeping such index.The table on which this index is created is used more for reads and less for writes.
View 6 Replies View RelatedI am building three partitioned, clustered column store tables.I was researching whether it was faster to populate a staging table and swap it into the partitioned table or to directly insert into the partitioned table.The first partition for the three tables will have:
Table F: 50M rows, 6 columns wide, partitioned on a date column (1 date, 2 bigint keys, and two varchar columns)
Table D1: 50M rows, 150 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint
Table D2: 19M rows, 300 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint
If build the data that would go into partition 1 in a non partitioned column store, I get these table sizes:
Table F: 476 MB
Table D1: 6,800 MB
Table D2: 5,496 MB
If build the same data directly in the partitioned column store, my table sizes end up being:
Table F: 579 MB
Table D1: 6,800 MB
Table D2: 5,364 MB
That's a 20% difference on Table F, the narrow table.Looking at the row groups, I see 47 identical row groups in partition 1 and the unpartitioned table, but the average "size_in_bytes" is consistently 20% smaller in the unpartitioned table.
I am trying to tune a process that is running slowly. I analyzed the process using the Database Engine Tuning Advisor, and it recommended the creation of 3 indexes, all non-clustered:
1) ColA, include ColB
2) ColA, include ColC
3) ColA, include ColD
So... I created a single non-clustered index on:
4) ColA, include ColB, ColC, ColD
That should do the same thing, right? A look at my execution plan shows that the index I created is being scanned -- 3 times. What is puzzling me, though, is that the Database Engine Tuning Advisor is still recommending I create these 3 separate indexes, even with the index (4) that I created in existence.
If it matters, ColA, ColB, ColC and ColD are all int FKs.
how to reduce the cost of clustered index insert ?
View 8 Replies View Related