Users can approach their userprofile on my site using: www.mysite.com/name=peter
Name 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?
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.
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 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I 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?
I 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?
Hi, I was wondering if any SQL Server gurus out there could help me...I have a table I'm trying to apply a full text catalog to, however no results are ever returned due to the text column being cataloged being of varbinary(max) that's being populated from a converted nvarchar(max) value - I've narrowed it down to this specifically, populating with non nvarchar text seems to work fine.To re-create the problem quickly...If I populate the column viaCONVERT(varbinary(max), 'test text')then there is no problem, I get results as expected.However if I populate the column viaCONVERT(varbinary(max), CAST('test text' as nvarchar(max)))no results are ever returned.Is this a bug with SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexing? I'm happily creating full text catalogs when an nvarchar is not getting converted into a varbinary.I'm setting the Document Type column to '.html' (I've tried changing this to '.txt' in case it was a fault with the html ifilter but the problem persists so I believe I can rule this out).The reason I need to convert an nvarchar to varbinary is that the table holds multi-lingual text and I'm adding a html meta tag <META NAME="MS.LOCALE" CONTENT="ES"> to the beginning in order for the full text indexing word breaker to select the correct language to catalog the text with. The aim being to provide more relevant searches in users native languages (I've read a few articles that describe this technique, but it's the first time I've tried to apply it).Any pointers / suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers,Gavin.
Hi, I was wondering if any SQL Server gurus out there could help me...
I have a table I'm trying to apply a full text catalog to, however no results are ever returned due to the text column being cataloged being of varbinary(max) that's being populated from a converted nvarchar(max) value.
To re-create the problem quickly...
If I populate the column via CONVERT(varbinary(max), 'test text') then there is no problem, I get results as expected.
However if I populate the column via CONVERT(varbinary(max), CAST('test text' as nvarchar(max))) no results are ever returned.
Is this a bug with SQL Server 2005 Full Text Indexing? I'm happily creating full text catalogs when an nvarchar is not getting converted into a varbinary.
I'm setting the Document Type column to '.html' (I've tried changing this to '.txt' in case it was a fault with the html ifilter but the problem persists so I believe I can rule this out).
The reason I need to convert an nvarchar to varbinary is that the table holds multi-lingual text and I'm adding a html meta tag <META NAME="MS.LOCALE" CONTENT="ES"> to the beginning in order for the full text indexing word breaker to select the correct language to catalog the text with. The aim being to provide more relevant searches in users native languages (I've read a few articles that describe this technique, but it's the first time I've tried to apply it).
Any pointers / suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Gavin.
UPDATE: Below is a T-SQL script you can run to demonstrate the effect I'm experiencing...
Code Snippet
-- Create test database CREATE DATABASE FullTextTest GO USE FullTextTest GO
-- Create test data table CREATE TABLE TestTable ( pk UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NOT NULL CONSTRAINT tablePK PRIMARY KEY, varbinarycol VARBINARY(MAX), documentExtension VARCHAR(5), ) GO
-- The below single entry WILL BE FOUND (the text source is being entered directly) INSERT INTO TestTable (pk, varbinarycol, documentExtension) VALUES (NEWID(), CONVERT(VARBINARY(MAX),'<META NAME="MS.LOCALE" CONTENT="EN">test entry 1'), '.html')
-- The bellow two entries below WILL NOT BE FOUND (the text source is taken from an NVARCHAR(MAX) value) INSERT INTO TestTable (pk, varbinarycol, documentExtension) VALUES (NEWID(), CONVERT(VARBINARY(MAX), CAST('<META NAME="MS.LOCALE" CONTENT="EN">test entry 2' AS NVARCHAR(MAX))), '.html') INSERT INTO TestTable (pk, varbinarycol, documentExtension) VALUES (NEWID(), CONVERT(VARBINARY(MAX), CAST('<META NAME="MS.LOCALE" CONTENT="EN">test entry 3' AS NVARCHAR(MAX))), '.html') GO
-- Create the full text catalog sp_fulltext_database 'enable' GO CREATE FULLTEXT CATALOG TEST AS DEFAULT GO CREATE FULLTEXT INDEX ON TestTable (varbinarycol TYPE COLUMN documentExtension LANGUAGE 1033) KEY INDEX tablePK GO
-- NOTE: You might need to give the catalog a chance to build before running the script below.
-- Now do a search that SHOULD RETURN 3 ROWS of data, but ONLY 1 ROW IS RETURNED SELECT CAST(varbinarycol AS NVARCHAR(MAX)) FROM TestTable WHERE CONTAINS(varbinarycol, 'test')
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.
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,
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?
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?
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?
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 ??
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.
Hi, I have a small table (around 10,000 rows) that is constantly selected from, deleted from, and inserted into. Basically we fill it with content, our web application selects the content, and when we run out, we regenerate (about 50 rows at a time). We currently have a nonclustered PK on the first two columns, both INTs. How can I determine if a clustered index would be better? I am concerned about bottlenecks due to a hotspot with the nonclustered index. When our site really starts to get users, this could become a big issue. I am thinking that I could use a clustered index, and set up a job to reindex the table once every hour or so....any help is appreciated greatly.
In Microsoft SQL Management Studio 2005 I have the ability to add a single non clustered index on a table on multiple columns (ordered how I want) AND/OR I may create a multiple of these non-clustered Index entries with a single column per non-clustered index.
Is there a difference between to two options? If yes, how do these options work differently? I assume option 1 is just a faster way of creating the non-clustered index and there is no architectural difference!?
