Is there a dynamic management view or system procedure which I can use to find out what columns are in an index, what columns are as an INCLUDE in the index and whether or not the column(s) are ascending or descending. This is excluding the utilities I already know about below:
sys.indexes
sys.index_columns
sp_helpindex
dm_db_index_physical_stats
dm_db_index_operational_stats
I only ask because it is a pain to look through the sys.indexes and sys.index_columns tables every time I want to know about what columns are in the index created. I also know that scripting the index would give me the information I need but there must be a better way.
I have 2 columns in a table namely ColA and ColB.all DML operations are through views n every view has Where clause i.e where ColA=€?€? with check option . All most all my DML queries are using where clause on ColB Where ColB=€?€?
Now my question is I have a clusted index on both ColA and ColB.in which order I have to create cluster index . i.e ColA ASC,ColB ASC or ColB ASC,ColA ASC.
Is there any performance gain we can achieve with their order
In SQL 2012.A query that joins 2 table, with order by clause doesn't get sorted and the result set is not ordered. This happens when some of the columns in the where criteria are in a unique index which is the index that is used for the join between the 2 tables, and all the columns in the unique index are in the where criteria.In the query plan there is no component for sort.The work around was to drop the unique index, or change it to a non-unique index. Once this was done, the execution plan was changed to add the sort component (even when the index was changed to non-unique and the join was still using this index).
I am really puzzled by an apparent difference between table index key column order and its statistics order. I was under understanding that index statistics mirror index definition. However, in my db 2470 index ordinal definitions match statistics definition but 66 do not. I also can reproduce such discrepancy in 2008 R2, 2012 and 2014.
As per definition,
stats_column_id int
1-based ordinal within set of stats columns
This script duplicates this for me.
BEGIN TRAN GO use tempdb GO CREATE TABLE [dbo].[ItemProperties]( [itmID] [int] NOT NULL, [cpID] [smallint] NOT NULL, [ipuID] [tinyint] NOT NULL,
[Code] ....
The result I get is this:
object_id      stats_name                                     stats_column_list 1525580473 PK_ItemProperties_itmID_ipuID_cpID itmID, cpID, ipuID,
and
object_id      index_name                                     index_column_list 1525580473 PK_ItemProperties_itmID_ipuID_cpID itmID, ipuID, cpID,
Also a query I used to discover this in my db is:
WITH stat AS ( SELECT s.object_id ,s.name as stats_name ,( SELECT c.name + ', ' as [data()] FROM sys.stats_columns as sc
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?
As I am creating the non-clustered indexes for the tables, I dont quite understand how dose it really matter to put the columns in the index key columns or put them into the included columns of the index?
I am really confused about that and I am looking forward to hearing from you and thank you very much again for your advices and help.
Does anyone have a general rule or guide on when to use this SQL 2000 option when creating indexes? I was thinking generally on nonclustered indexes where the column would be unique and incremental and usually filtered on by range and often used in the order by clause. Such as columns of datetime or integers datatypes. Thanks.
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?
Hi,I created a composite index (lastname, firstname). I know the followingqueries will use this index:WHERE lastname = ...WHERE lastname = ... AND firstname = ...Also this won't use the index:WHERE firstname = ...But how about: WHERE firstname = .. AND lastname = ...And why?Thanks a lot,Baihao--Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Hi allI recently noticed when trying to optimise a major query of a chess websiteI am the webmaster of, that adding an order by for "gamenumber" which is aclustered index field as in for example "order by timeleft desc, gamenumberdesc" actually speeded up the queries and reduced sql server 2000 timeouts.I have an ASP error log and I am fairly sure that a dramatic reduction insql server timeouts is simply attributed to adding an extra seeminglyredundant order by field - which is the clustered index. Is this phenomenaat all possible or is it my imagination?!Other special attributes of the query includes the use of "Top" to obtain amaximum specified number of rows. Perhaps it is just the uniquecharacteristics of the query, but I would have thought that the less orderby fields would imply faster performance. Has anyone else noticed that aseemingly redundant order by column on for example the clustered indexcolumn, can actually help speed up queries?!Best wishesTryfon GavrielWebmasterwww.chessworld.net
Hi, I want to ask a basic question, that is IN WHAT ORDER A CLUSTERED INDEX SORT THE DATA IN THE COLUMN????
Somewhere in the MSDN library I read the following line: "A clustered index physically sorts the table's contents in the order of the specified index columns"
But Sorting means it will be in ASCENDING ORDER (ASC) or It will be in DESCENDING ORDER (DESC) So my question is lets suppose a column on which the cluistered index is defined and it contains character data liek abcd so in wht order it will sort the data alphabetically ASC or DESC or If the same above case with integer type of values, if column having integer values then in wht order the data in the table will be sorted.
We are using partitioned unique indexes on partitioned tables. When the Unique Index is built, should the column the index is partitioned by be the top (leftmost) column in the index? While this violates cardinality, it makes sense (at least to me) that the first thing the query execution would do is figure out which partition(s) contain the result set, then filter from there.
What do you guys think? Is there any documentation on optimizing partitioned indexes?
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?
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'm getting this "invalid descriptor index" exception while trying to fetch a record from the table. The query is "select * from <tablename> where <columnname> = 'xyz'". The column name is correct and indeed a record with 'xyz' value exists. The record is getting fetched too...! But I'm having this particular error while trying to retrieve a couple of fields with rs.getString(). The order of columns in the table is same as the order in which I'm retrieving them. And I'm not facing any problem retrieving another field which has width of 200 characters. I'll be very grateful indeed if someone can help me out of this particular problem...
I am familiar with the ALTER TABLE syntax that can be used to add columns to an existing table, but the columns are appended to the end of the table. Enterprise Manager allows you to insert a column in the desired place in the table, but I suspect that behind the scenes it creates a temp table with the new structure, drops the old version of the table and renames the temp table to the orginal table name (I could be wrong on this).
Is there a way to insert a new column in a specific place in a table using SQL rather than EM?
Hi, I am using MS SQL Server 2005 9.00.1399.00. I am trying to make a PivotReport. Everything is fine, but the columns are are ordered alphabetically, but i want that they are ordered in a specific way. So i just created a new column ProcId in the Query, but how can i order the columns with the new column but display the other values.
and thats what gets written to the flatfile destination.
i want SSIS to preserve the column order and write it as col1,col2,col3,col4 instead of what is happening now and it gets written as col2,col4,col3....
i am running sql2k5 and SSIS with sp2
is this a bug is there a solution for this or change the order of the columns for the flat file destination
We are running SQL Server 2014 Enterprise Edition (64-Bit) on Windows 2012 R2 Standard (64-Bit).
1. When to create indexes, before or after data is added? Please address Clustered and Non-Clustered Indexes.
2. To move indexes to it's own filegroup, is it best to create the NON-Clustered Indexes on the separate filegroup with code similar to the example below?
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX IX_Employee_OrganizationLevel_OrganizationNode ON HumanResources.Employee (OrganizationLevel, OrganizationNode) WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON TransactionsFG1; GO
I have read the following links that states that if you create the Clustered Index on a separate filegroup, it would also move the base table to that particular filegroup. (So I take it that you ONLY can move NON-CLustered Indexes to a separate filegroup.)
Placing Indexes on Filegroups:
[URL]
By default, indexes are stored in the same filegroup as the base table on which the index is created. A nonpartitioned clustered index and the base table always reside in the same filegroup. However, you can do the following:
• Create nonclustered indexes on a filegroup other than the filegroup of the base table.
Move an Existing Index to a Different Filegroup:
[URL]
Limitations and Restrictions
• If a table has a clustered index, moving the clustered index to a new filegroup moves the table to that filegroup.
• You cannot move indexes created using a UNIQUE or PRIMARY KEY constraint using Management Studio. To move these indexes use the CREATE INDEX statement with the (DROP_EXISTING=ON) option in Transact-SQL.
I'm unable to specify multiple columns in my order by statement if i use a case statement. Does anyone know why this is, or what syntax would make this work?
Thanks
SELECT .... ORDER BY (CASE Lower(@SortExpression) WHEN 'prodname' THEN prodname, prodprice WHEN 'prodsize' THEN prodsize, prodname WHEN 'prodprice' THEN prodprice, prodname Else prodcompany, prodname END)
According to BOL, columns in an ORDER BY clause do not have to be in the SELECTcolumn list unless the SELECT includes DISTINCT, or the UNION operator.Is this a SQL Server thing, or SQL standard behavior? That is, if I were to writeabsolutely pure SQL-92, must columns in the ORDER BY clause be present in the SELECTlist?
I have a report that displays data based on the last 12 months. Is there a way I can order the columns (header and data) based on the month it was run. eg. If I were to run the report in March, I want the columns to be ordered like this:
MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC, JAN, FEB
If run the report in April, I want the columns to be ordered like this:
APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC, JAN, FEB, MAR
So, the columns in the report are always ordered (12 months backward) based on the month it was run.
How do you index through a set of Columns Programmatically using SQL. I have a Table all the columns have the same data for different dates. Column names are Col_0, Col_1, Col_2,.....Col_100, Col_101. I need to perform the same calculation on each column to manipulate the data into a different table. Is it possible to do a While loop that changes the Column name in a SELECT statement. I have tried to do this but can't seem to get it to work. Please help !
I am relatively new to complex queries and need creating a query using a CASE in order to update columns to be either A or B. A few things about this is that I am joining tables from linked servers as well. This is the last part. I execute the query and receive the error:
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'from'.
select (select FirstName from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as supervisorFirstName, (select LastName from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as supervisorLastName, (select PersonID from [ZZZXXX].HCM.dbo.tPerson where PersonGUID = tPersonJobHistAlias.SupervisorPersonGUID) as SupervisorEmployeeID,
In my SSIS package I have a text file source that I am mapping to a destination table. I have an error component that logs any row level errors and have noticed that it is not logging the correct field. I know this because I have a few different sources that submit the same files and have looked at the source of both. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE in the one that works versus the one that does not is that 2 of the 25+ columns are switched. I would not think this would matter because field A in the text file is mapped to field A in the database.
Does the order in which the fields come into the SSIS package matter?
Here is the situation. I have created a package that takes 50 columns from a comma delimited flat file. I then validate and clean the data. Next I add two columns that were not in the original source file. These two columns need to be in the 5th and 9th column position when the file is then re-written to a text file. How do i get those two columns to write out in the desired order? Any ideas?
I need to create a number of flat files, all with the same layout and sourced from the the same table, but with different criteria.
The first set of (three) flat files file is created out of a simple Conditional Split transformation: If Source Table row number > 40,000 route to File 3; if row number > 20,000, route to file 2, otherwise route to file 1. This gives me 20,000 rows in files 1 & 2 and the remainder in file 3.
I also want to create a fourth flat file by joining the Source Table with a sample table and selecting only those rows where the Customer numbers match. I'm currently doing this in two stages: An Execute SQL Task performs the join and inserts the selected rows into a Destination table (identical layout to source table), and then a simple data flow moves the rows from the Destination table into the fourth flat file.
My problem is that the order of the columns in the first three flat files is different from the fourth file. I've tried creating the fourth flat file with a single data flow using a Merge Join transformation which didn't work because the tables aren't sorted in the correct sequence, and I couldn't get an OLE DB Command transformation to work either.
I'm not sure why the column order of the 4th file should be different seeing as how its contents are sourced from the same Source table, but is there a cunning way of setting this up so that the columns end up in the same order?
I am trying to index through the columns of MyTable so I can do the same work on all columns. I know how to get the column names from MyTable but when I use @MyColName in the SELECT statement to get MyTable Column 0 Row values I get a table with the column name in each row cell. I can't get the syntax correct to return the value in each cell for that column. This is a extremely simplified example !!!!!!DECLARE @MyColName nvarchar(30) --Get the MyTable Column 0 NameSELECT @MyColName = Col_Name(Object_ID('MyTable'), 0) --Display the MyTable Column 0 Row valuesSELECT @MyColName FROM MyTable --This is the syntax I can not get correct
I'm using sys.dm_db_missing_index_details to find missing indexes on a database that is currently in testing. After running a bunch of our reports, there are several suggested indexes on 3 or 4 columns that have 15 - 20 included columns. The included columns are mostly varchars ranging from 1 to 150 characters along with a couple of date columns. My index size on that table is already nearly twice the size of the data.
I don't think it's a good idea to add an index with that many columns, but the information I've read on included columns is very general. I'm wondering if there is something about them that I don't understand that would make this a good idea.
