DB Design :: Script To Create Table With Primary Key Non-clustered And Clustered Index
Aug 28, 2015
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,
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 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 all as i remember i had read in Books Online that on each Table in Sql Server we can create only one Clustered index but today suddenly i create another clustered index on a table without any Error from SQl server !!! BUT my query Order changed to the order of this newly created index. could anyone elaborate on this issue?
Hi All,I have a database that is serving a web site with reasonably hightraffiic.We're getting errors at certain points where processes are beinglocked. In particular, one of our people has suggested that an updatestatement contained within a stored procedure that uses a wherecondition that only touches on a column that has a clustered primaryindex on it will still cause a table lock.So, for example:UPDATE ORDERS SETprod = @product,val = @valWHERE ordid = @ordidIn this case ordid has a clustered primary index on it.Can anyone tell me if this would be the case, and if there's a way ofensuring that we are only doing a row lock on the record specified inthe where condition?Many, many thanks in advance!Much warmth,Murray
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
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.
We have a table, which has one clustered index and one non clustered index(primary key). I want to drop the existing clustered index and make the primary key as clustered. Is there any easy way to do that. Will Drop_Existing support on this matter?
I have a really super slow stored proc that does something simple. it updates a table if certain values are received.
In looking at this the matching is done on the Primary Key, which is set as a Clustered index, looking further I have another constraint, that sets the same column to a Unique, Non-Clustered.
I am not sure why this was done, but it seems to be counter productive. I have read only references to Which one is better on a primary key, but not can their be both and if it is "Smart".
I want to keep certain archive data in certain tables. One such table is currently about 190 GB in size. It has a primary key with clustered index and three non-clustered indexes. The type of queries fired are strictly selects (daily) and inserts (only monthly).
Question: Is it advisable to have a non-clustered index on the primary key column?.....I am finding that the insert performance is getting hurt due to presence of clustered index on such a large table (190 GB).
I have created a very simple table. Here is the script:
if exists (select * from dbo.sysobjects where id = object_id(N'[dbo].[IndexTable]') and OBJECTPROPERTY(id, N'IsUserTable') = 1) drop table [dbo].[IndexTable]
GO
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[IndexTable] ( [Id] [int] NOT NULL , [Code] [nvarchar] (50) COLLATE SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CI_AS NOT NULL ) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [CusteredOnCode] ON [dbo].[IndexTable]([Id]) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[IndexTable] ADD CONSTRAINT [PrimaryKeyOnId] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED ( [Id] ) ON [PRIMARY] GO
The records that i added are:
Id Code
1 a 2 b 3 aa 4 bb
Now when i query like
Select * from IndexTable
I expect the results as:
Id Code
1 a 3 aa 2 b 4 bb
as i have the clustered index on column Code.
But i m getting the results as:
Id Code
1 a 2 b 3 aa 4 bb
as per the primary key order that is a non clustered index.
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've a table with primary key defined as non-clusterd, now without dropping it can I modify the existing index to clustered through tsql as I had to write some migration script and in that script I wanna do this.
I am trying to drop a primary key on column LID and then create a clustered index on a new identity column ID and then add the primary key back on the LID. I am not able to do so due the table being in replication. here is the error:
Cannot alter the table '' because it is being published for replication.
How do I get past the error and create the Clustered Index on ID column in both publisher and subscriber?
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 have a view named select id,name,state from customer where state ='va' can I create clustered index on a view (name) if so please provide me with the sql statement. Thanks Al
I need to know how long it will take to create a non-clustered index given:I know how many columns the index will affect, the column width in bytes, how many rows, an average row size, the number of hard disks, their speed in RPM, and they are setup in RAID 5. Thanks
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 all , I am using sql server 2005. I want to create non clustered index speed up the query search. but when i create index with this code CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX TEST ON DOCTOR_MASTER( DR_CUST_DOCTORCODE)
i am getting error like Column 'DR_CUST_DOCTORCODE' in table 'DOCTOR_MASTER' cannot be used in an index or statistics or as a partition key because it is non-deterministic.
This column is formulated column whose value is populated when record get inserted through function. It values is i format identity column value + category
By default, the Upsizing Wizard transfers all indexes as nonclustered indexes. You can modify the Upsizing Wizard to transfer the primary key index to a clustered index. To make this change, start Microsoft Access and open the upsizing wizard library database. For Microsoft Access 95, the filename is Wzcs.mda. For Microsoft Access 97, the filename is Wzcs97.mda. When the database is open, click the Modules tab and open the UT_ModUserConstants module. Search down to the UT_CLUSTERED constant. Change the default value from False to True.
<<< end quote Question: I am using ACCESS 2002 upsize wizard, I searched my computer for *.mda and could not find any wzcs*.mda. How do I set it so that it creates clustered-index instead of non-clustered-index?
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 already posted this over on sqlteam so don't peek there if you haven't seen that post yet. :)
So now to the question:
Anyone care to guess how long it took me to build a clustered index on a table with 900 million rows? This is the largest amount of data in a single table I have had to work with thus far in my career! It's sorta fun to work with such large datasets. :)
Some details:
1. running sql 2005 on a dual proc 32bit server, 8gb ram, hyperthreaded, 3ghz clock. disk is a decent SAN, not sure of the specs though.
2. ddl for table:
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[fld]( [id] [bigint] NOT NULL, [id2] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [extid] [bigint] NOT NULL, [dd] [bit] NOT NULL, [mp] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [ss] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [cc] [datetime] NOT NULL, [ff] [tinyint] NOT NULL, [mm] [smallint] NOT NULL, [ds] [smallint] NOT NULL )
3. ddl for index (this is the only index on the table):
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX [CIfld] ON [dbo].[fld] ( extid asc )WITH (FILLFACTOR=100, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF)
4. extid column was not sorted to begin with. ordering was completely random.
Note that I have changed the column names, etc, to protect the innocent. I can't go into details about what it's for or I'd be violating NDA type stuff.
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?
We are trying to load flat text files with upwards of 7 million records into a table on SQL. The table has a clustered index on 3 fields. We setup the indexes prior to importing the data. We are sometimes able to complete smaller tables (500,000-750,000 records), however when we try the larger tables an error occurs :
Error at Destination for row number 6785496. Errors encountered so far in this task: 1
Location: somerge.c:1573 Expression: mrP->mrStatus!=MERGERUN::NONE SPID: 11 Process ID: 173
The destination row number is the same number as the total number of rows that we are trying to load.
None of the recods end up importing. The row number it gives is always the total number of records that was in the text file I was trying to import. I tried to import the text files first and then build the clustered indexes but a table with only 300,000 records ran for nearly 4 days without completing before we killed it. Be for we try to load the file we always delete whatever is there. Some of the files that we try to load are new and we have to set up the indexes from scratch. We are using a DTS wizard. Someone told me to find a way to get it to commit every 1000 or so but I can't find a way to do it. I looked and looked but can't find it !!!
I have a table "Client" that has two columns: "ClientID" and "ProductID". I created on clustered index on ClientID and when I opened the table in the management studio, I saw the table was in the order of ClientID.
Then I added another non-clustered index on ProductID. When I open the table again, it is in the order of ProductID. Shouldn't the table always be in the order of clustered index? Non-clustered index should be a structure outside of the table itself? Did I do anything wrong?
I am trying to create a temp table with a non-clustered index.
Originally I tried to create the index after I created the table.
This seemed to work fine, so I added my stored procedure to our Production environment.
However, when two users called the stored procedure at once I got the following error:
There is already an object named 'IX_tmpTableName' in the database. Could not create constraint. See previous errors.
I then found that SQL Server does generate unique names for the temp table but not all the objects associated with the temp table if they are explicitly named.
This is easy enough to solve for a PRIMAY KEY or UNIQUE constraint because the do not have to be named.
Is there a way to create an non-clustered index on a temp table without naming it?
