With help of others on this group, I've been learning and researching
about indexes; an area I neglected.
I see I can specify which filegroup I wish to create an index, which
the default is Primary.
I have more than one drive in my SQL server where I put data and logs
on their own logical raid groups.
My databases are SIMPLE, so they dont use much, if any logs (none as I
understand).
I was thinking of adding an additional file to my database and use it
solely for the indexes.
Any thoughts?
SQL Server 2005 Enterprise x64 SP2
8 disk SAS Raid 1+0 w/ 512mb ram w/ battery backup.
Thanks,
Rob
Is there any utility to migrate the existing indexes on default filegroup to a new user defined file group? The only way that I know is to delete the index and recreate with new filegroup.
How about for table? Is there any utility for migrating the existing tables to a different filegroup? The only way that I know is to create a clustered index on the new filegroup which will move the table to the new filegroup. If a clustered index exists then drop the clustered index and recreate it with the new filegroup
I am looking for an existing utility which would do the above?
I have a database around 500 GB. right now the database have only one data file and one log, it has only one filegroup also.all the indexes and table are placed in Primary Filegroup . we are going to separate them. the planing is to move all the indexes to Secondary filegroup and all the table will be in Primary filegroup.But there will be a problem while implementing it because there are around 600 tables and each table have at least 2 non-clustered index , so is there any way to move all the index to Secondary Filegroup.
I'm working to improve performance on a database I've inherited, and there are several thousand indexes. I've got a list of ones which should definitely exist within the database, and I'm looking to strip out all the others and start fresh, though this list is still quite large (1000 or so).
Is there a way I can remove all the indexes that are not in my list without too much trouble? I.e. without having to manually go through them all individually. The list is currently in a csv file.
I'm looking to either automate the removal of indexes not in the list, or possibly to generate the Create statements for the indexes on the list and simply remove all indexes and then run these statements.
As an aside, when trying to list all indexes in the database, I've found various scripts to do this, but found they all seem to produce differing results. What is the best script to list all indexes?
partition with single file group or multiple file group which one best.
we have some report running from partition table, few reports don't have any partition Key and after creating 400 partition with 400 file group it is slow.what is best practices to crate 400 file group or single file group.
When creating the indexes on the table, SQL 7.0 also created some type of system indexes ( ex. _WA_Sys_curr_int_rate_2C88998B nonclustered, statistics, auto create located on PRIMARY, etc. ). I want to know how can I clear up these system indexes.
Slayer writes "Probably a really lame question but in the absence of our DBA I have been asked to create a couple of indexes on a table. No problem with that, just need to know if this is a safe operation whilst users are using the database.
A few months ago, the company I work for switched to SQL 7.0 from 6.5. All is running fine but recently I noticed that we have a ton of indexes on each table that start like this: _WA_SYS_....0B679CE2 (here are some specific examples: _WA_SYS_PRODUCT_LINE_0B679CE2, _WA_SYS_RMA_DISPOSITION_0B679CE2)
Did SQL 7.0 do this? If so why? What is it trying to do? Why doesn't it use current indexes (clustered and non-clustered)? Why don't they get Fragmented like User defined indexes? I have a lot of questions associated with this if someone can explain it.
Tech Net, MSDN, BOL and other manual resources don't mention anything about it. At least I haven't found anything on it and I have spent some time looking.
1)When we create Indexes, key columns are the columns that use in where clause and included columns are the columns that can be used in the select list and on join clause column.
2) I am thinking that we have to create new Index, only if we found at least 50 msec time save.
Hi,I have a new job. It needs to drop and re-create (by insert) a tableevery night. The table contains approximately 3,000,000 (and growing)records. The insert is fine, runs in 2 minutes. The problem is thatwhen I create the indexes on the table, it is taking 15-20 minutes.There is one clustered index and 11 non-clustered. This is a lookuptable that takes many different paremeters, so it really needs theindexes for the user interface to run efficiently. However, thedatabase owners aren't keen on a job taking 20 minutes to run everynight.Any ideas?
First, I'd like some help stablishing if it's a good idea or not what I'm thinking, and second is what would be the easyist way to achive the result.
Background. We have a multicompany ERP system (200GB, 200+ tables). All data tables have a companyid, counter1id, counter2id, fields. Each table has a primary clusterd index on these fields in that order. And also has multiple other indexes that usually include companyid filed first. ( Note we have 10 companies, ids are 1..10, companies 2 and 5 are the most active, inserts, selects ). MY GUESS IS THAT THIS IS VERY BAD HAVING COMPANYID FIRST. AM I CORRECT? LEADS TO AL LOT OF FRAGMENTATION? VERY BAD TO FIND DATA ON THE INDEXES?
I want to re-create all my indexes and have them counter2id, companyid, counter2id. ( counter1id is a counter for each company, and counter2id is a global counter like identity ) GOOD OR BAD IDEA?
Since I have hundreds of indexes what is the correct procedure? I was thinking on scripting the database, then dropping all indexes, then recreate clustered indexes, then recreate other indexes. Do I have to take care of anything else foreing relationships, etc.
I know that statistics called _WA_... are created on tables when auto create statistics is set on a database. Is this an indication that queries against the table would perform better if indexes were created on the columns in question? (The tables I'm interested in optimising are used equally for transactional querying and reporting)
I am new to writing SQL code and I read that you can use ALTER statements to create an index for a table. How would I go about doing that? Everything that I have tried in Query Analyzer comes up with an error.
I have a pretty large database that has tables that will contain millions of rows of records. I will predominantly be using Views just to select the data. (I will not be performing any updates or inserts). I propose creating indexes on the views. My question is - if I create indexes on my views, do I have to create them on the tables as well? Is it good practice to create indexes on tables by default even if I am not going to be performing select statements directly on my tables but via my indexed views? Any advice is appreciated.
I use Indexes Fundamentals of Microsoft SQL Server - Lesson 30: Indexes in the website of URL... to learn the basic things of Indexes. In my SQL Server 2012 Management Studio (SSMS2012), I executed the following code..
-- scFTX_CreateTableEmployees.sql -- saved in C:/Documents/SQLServerIndexes_downloadCode -- 26 May 2015 10:52 AM USE ScottChangDB; GO CREATE TABLE Employees
[code]....
Where the SCHEMA and the index 'IX_Employees are located in the Object Explorer of the database "ScottChangDB" of my SSMS2012.
For large databases is it a good idea to create indexes for fields that are used in Where statements? Does that improve performance and reduce overhead?
Something strange.I have a database(SQL2000) with two file group(on seperate physicaldrives).One is meant for table data[PRIMARY] and one for indexes [INDEX].So i create a table on the [PRIMARY] file group, and fill indata.Next I build a clustered index on the table, on the [INDEX] filegroup.Once the index is built, the database now indicates that the filegroupfor the table [INDEX]! and not [PRIMARY] as i originally set it up for!My question it then: Has the table been moved or is this somehow anerror in SQL server?I would really appreciate any thought anyone might have on this?
For a database, we have 4 data files in a particular file group and the file sizes are almost 70 GB each.
Do I come across any performance issues if I create/pre-allocate an additional data file in the same file group so that the existing files don't grow too much?
In a server we had File Growth,And then We had to Add New Hard Drive And New File On It.And Now We have New server with a Huge Hard Drive.But all files remaind.Can I Reduce This files to One data file or not ?
Why shrinkfile empty file does not redistribute data evenly in the primary file group with multiple files:
Please run the script attached to see what the end result is.
This is what I set up last night on my test machine.
1) Create database [FGTest] size 200MB 2) Create table called TEST on primary 3) Insert 40MB of data into test 4) Create another file group called temp in primary size 200MB 5) Shrinkfile('FGTest',emptyfile) so that all data is transfered from FGTest into temp file group. 6) Add another 2 files called DATA2 and DATA3. Both are 200MB. 7) We now have 3 empty files that I want data distributed evenly on. FGTest, DATA2 & DATA3 8) Shrinkfile('temp',emptyfile) to move all the data from temp over the 3 file groups evenly
I would expect at this stage to have the following:
FGTest = 13MB, DATA2 = 13MB, DATA3 = 13MB
(40MB of data over 3 files should be about 13 MBish in each file)
What I actually end up with is this:
FGTest = 20MB DATA1 = 10MB DATA2 = 10MB
It looks as though SQL Server is allocating 50% of all data to the original file and then 50% evenly over the remaining files in PRIMARY.
i am preparing for always on with multiple instant.is there any consideration with multiple instant ? with each instant shall i create new availability group?
I still don't get some of the more complex stuff in SQL, so I've got a question about grouping:
I've got a table with articles and a table how much articles I got in stock. The ArticlesInStock-table might contain more than one row for an article, so to check how many items I got in stock I use this group by-SQL:
SELECT [ArticleID], SUM([InStock]), SUM([InStock] * [Price]) FROM dbo.[ArticlesInStock] GROUP BY [ArticleID]
this does work nicely. But now I'd like to get the order no of the article, too (and maybe sort by it), and this is where I get stuck.
I thought it might be something like this:
SELECT [ArticleID], SUM([InStock]), SUM([InStock] * [Price]), [Articles].[OrderNo] FROM dbo.[ArticlesInStock], dbo.[Articles] WHERE dbo.[ArticlesInStock].[ArticleID] = dbo.[Articles].[ArticleID] GROUP BY [ArticleID]
We are in the process of replacing our primary production server. In the process of determining how SQL server is going to be structured, it has been suggested that I place all current and new indexes on a separate file group. These filegroups would then reside on a separate shelf on the server. What are the pros and cons of doing this?
electric: id_electric indentity primary key, id_room varchar(4), number_first int, number_last int, Sum_Number int, money_electric money, status bit
Water: id_Water indentity primary key, id_room varchar(4), number_first int, number_last int, Sum_Number int, money_water money, status bit
Now what I want to do are statistics on how much money I got in a year or month. Here is my code to calculate incomes of year.
Select Year(day_register) as 'Year' , Sum(money_per_month * month(day_end-day_register)) + sum(b.money_electric+c.money_water) as 'Incomes' From lodgings_Contract a , electric b , Water c Where a.id_room = b.id_room And a.id_room = c.id_room And b.status = 1 And c.status = 1 Group by Year(day_register)
Hello Friends, I am creating a report in which I want to create group column using two field value. Is it possible to do so? We have a requirement in which we are fetching data from two different hierarchy.
A B C D E F G H I J K L 1 2 3....................4 5 M ............................. N ......................... O ....................... P
The report matrix look like the above one. The elements A,B,C are coming from one hierarchy and D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K are coming from other hierarchy. But i have created one data set to fetch the values for the report. But while creating the column group I am getting both two diff fields so I am not able to use it in single Column group and I want to use only one column group.
I have created a database fronted by an ASP.Net application. It's all nice and simple, and I only need a very simple level of security (and even that is only as a protection against accidents rather than maliciousness). My intention is that users connect using Windows impersonation (<identity="true">), with the database creator having full access and the public group (I'm talking SQL groups here) having specific premissions granted on specific tables.
If I set <identity="false"> on my XP box the application connects to the database as [MACHINEASPNET]. This is easy to set up access for - I simply do a
CREATE LOGIN [MACHINEASPNET] FROM WINDOWS
and then within the actual database do a
CREATE USER [MACHINEASPNET]
But as I said, I want to use Windows impersonation. When I set <identity="true">, the application correctly attempts to connect as the actual Windows user account (e.g. [MACHINE estuser]). If that user is the user who installed the database, then all is well and it has full access. For anything else, I get a "cannot log on" error - this much I expect.
So I want to permit logins for all other users, and I want this to work regardless of whether the machine is a standalone machine whose "domain" is simply the machine's own name, whether it is in some form of traditional peer-to-peer workgroup, or whether the machine is connected to a real domain. I also want it to work on XP and Windows Server 2003 (and ideally Vista also, but that can wait). When I try the following:
CREATE LOGIN [MACHINEUsers] FROM WINDOWS
I get this error:
Msg 15401, Level 16, State 1, Server MACHINESQLEXPRESS, Line 1 Windows NT user or group 'MACHINEUsers' not found. Check the name again.
Nor does it work with [Everyone] (that one has no domain/folder listed against it in any permissions dialogs on my domainless development PC). So I'm stuck and confused. It's taken me ages just to get this far. Any suggestions anyone?
