If I have a clustered index on only one column of the table, the column being the primary key and an identity column ( int datatype, Ascending CIDX), then can I go ahead and have the Fill Factor be 100%. I may add more rows at a later date to the table.
Let me know.
I have some non-clustered , non-unique indexes on a medium sized table (25,000 rows).
The fill factore is showing 248% on these indexes. I have tried setting the fill factor to various values 100% or less. The re build index seems to work, however the est min/avg/max size of the index all show appx 160Kb, whilst the actual size is in excess of 50Mb !!
We run a weekly rebuild of all indexes overnight, without any fill params and following this the fill on these indexes goes back to 248% !
I have also dropped and re-created the index with a fill of 100%, and it has still reverted to 248% following the weekly rebuild.
I have also looked at the server config, and the fill factor there shows a running value of 171% !!, although the current config is set to 0.
The server is stopped every evening, so no way should the config have a value of 171, especially since the max allowed value is 100.
Any advice/assistance would be gratefully received.
Are there any rules of thumb to apply when entering the Index Fill Factor?
I just want to make sure I'm enter a optimal value.
Using MS SQL 2000.
Thanks!
--PhB
I am a little confused about what fill factor to use in creating a clustered index on one of our major tables.
This table has about 4.5 million rows and currently there are 14 indexes associated with it, but no clustered index.
I want to create a clustered index (on datestamp )on this table, but cannot really grasp what fillfactor I should use.
The main use of this table is in daterange reporting.
No deletes are applied to this table(except archiving on an annual basis).
It grows by about 5 000 rows daily.
From what I have read in BOL, a high fillfactor(100) is only applicable for a read only table, and I feel that at the time of creating a clustered index on this table, it is readonly, cos the data will never need to be reorganised to insert a new row into it, only at end.
BOL states that a low fillfactor could degrade database read performance,
and where the vast majority of our processing(reporting) hits this table,that is a major concern.
BUT BOL also says that a low Fillfactor is recommended where there are changes to the data.
Space is obviously important, but access speed is overwhelmingly more important.
Should I use a fillfactor of 70/80/90 etc. Any help would be appreciated
Currently we have tables (in sql 6,5), many of them do not have primary keys.
While I was trying to re-index (re-org), many of them got an error:
"fillfactor 204 is not a valid percentage; fillfactor must be between 1 and 100."
(many tables' fillfactor exceed 100 or more...)
How can I fix them so I can upgrade to sql 7 ?
Thank you for your help.
I am really confused about this whole fill factor thing. The way I understand it, is if you have a table whose data remains pretty much static, you should use a higher fill factor. Suppose you had a database where you had at most 150 transactions a day that changed the data, should the fill factor be left at the default(0) or increased? How do you determine how much to increase it? Is there a rule of thumb that suggests if you have x number of changes against a table, you should have a fill factor between y and z percent?
Please Help
Chris
Hi all,
While creating indexes for a table, I specified a fill factor of 70%. I then inserted a few hundred rows into the table. Is it possible to check to what percent the pages are full after the rows have been inserted?
Thanks in advance,
Praveena
You have a db with 50,000 records and you want to add 100,000 more. What should the right fill factor be? Is there a way to "calculate" a fill factor if you don't want to use default? Any help is appreciated. Thank you.
View 3 Replies View RelatedIf fill factor is specified as 100 for a table what will be the impact of this?I want to know any updation or insertion will be possible or not?
View 3 Replies View RelatedHellow, everyone"
I have a web online table that is inserted about 1500 record one day. Each night, a DST is running to pull all data to anther database. How to set fill factor on a one column index to get the best performance? Current fill factor is 80%.
Thanks
ZYT
Hi experts, I would like to ask regarding FILL FACTOR. I observed that our system's loading is a bit slow, and some of the modules take 1 to 2 minutes loading. Maintenance activity is regularly executed based on the scheduled sets. Then I tried to checked the tables indexes/keys turns out that the FILL FACTOR is set to ZERO(0). I would like to know if the FILL FACTOR set to zero will be a factor for the system to slow down..????
Darren Bernabe Blanco
How do i find out how much fill facot has been spcified in given table?.
View 1 Replies View RelatedWhat are the criteria to decide the optimal(or close to optimal) fill factor?
Any input is appreciated.
You have 50,000 records in a database file and you know you want to add another 100,000 records in the next several weeks. What fill factor would you use to maximize performance?
A.0(default setting)
B.30
C.70
D.100
which one is correct? And how to calculate fill factor?
I know what fill factor is ... and know that I should set it high when I have static data tables (where the data rarely changes) and low when I expect to have page splits ...
but does anyone know what affect on performance this setting has ? I don't quite get what Books Online says about it.
Thanks
Carol
Hi ,
Can u plz tell me what is fill factor and what its role in defining the indexes. It is by default 0% and can be set upto 100%, but what it makes difference if i change the percentage? Where it is exactly impacts? If u know any links then plz forward me.
Thanks And Regards,
Shailesh
I am trying to set up the relationship (Primary Key and Forign Key) in several tables. I would like to find a way also be able to set 'Fill Factor = 90%' in the script. Here is the code that i have so far:
ALTER TABLE Req
ADD CONSTRAINT FK_Req_Bow FOREIGN KEY ( BowID )
REFERENCES Bow ( BowID )
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
J827
Hi there
Is there any such thing that you can find the current Fill Factor for each indexing? The only thing that you have an indication is by looking at DBCC SHOWCONTIF > Scan Density [Best Count:Actual Count].......: 100.00% [0:0] and if this value is not reaching 100% means may have an issue with fill factor ?!!?
Also, how about SQL2000?
Thanks
HiThere are a lot of articles about the fillfactor.I did change the fill factor and that did not work as intended.How do I get back to the default fill factorI am using sp_msforeachtable undocumented database procedureand when the indexes are rebuilt the fill factor that shows upin origfillfactor is the one I am trying to move away fromYour help will be appreciatedVince
View 4 Replies View RelatedTurn away pure key zealots
I have a clustered index that starts with an INT IDENTITY(1,1) column and therefore you can only add data to the end of the cluster. What I'm confused about is the relationship between this and the fill factor. In a normal fill factor scenario you'd be worried about inserts causing page splits but if you can only append to this cluster does this mean I should set the factor to 100% even if I'm expecting a large number of inserts? Basically I don't understand what happens when you run out of space on a page on a B-tree if it's based upon an ever increasing number.
The tables in my database somehow are getting set with a fill factor of 90. In the properties of the server/Database Setting, the "Fixed" option is unchecked. Last Friday, I reset the each table to have a fill factor of zero, but when I came in today, the tables reset themselves to having a fill factor = 90. Any ideas of why this is happening and how I can stop this? Your help is greatly appreciated.
Mark
Hi,
Now i am doing a R&D on indexes in SQL 2005. I want to know clearly what is the actual uses of Fill Factor? What is advantage and disadvantage of it?
Where it should use this fill factor?
Please answer me as soon as possible.
Ganesh.
I am about to rebuild all my indexes on a database that is very heavily fragmented. In looking at the report, seems that 80% or more tables are 90%+ fragmented.
My understanding is that fill value value is used for performance reasons. Our shiny new backend SAN is 100% SSD. If solid state can provide a sub-millisecond response, is fill factor still necessary at the cost of additional space being used used?
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?
As the title says I re-indexed all of my databases using the wrong fill factor. Instead of using 90% as the fill factor I misunderstood and set this at 10%. So I believe my databases are now packed with a ton of unused space. The DB sizes should be about 5-6 GB but have since grown to 20-40GB. I am very new to SQL administration and don't know of a safe way to remove this unused space so that my databases return to their normal sizes. The databases do not grow very much at all so the free space is not really that necessary.
View 9 Replies View RelatedWe 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.
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
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 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>?