I use SQL Server 2000(database) and Visual Basic 6.
Now my data in a database is more than one year, so i build
a small program with VB 6 to delete my data and to save space from database
Database : A
Table name : Sew
Index : sew_idx1, sew_idx2, sew_idx3.
Before i run program, from enterprise manager, table info,
i got a info such as :
In program i use process such as :
1.Read data from table Sew
2Delete data from table Sew
When process finish, then from enterprise manager, table info,
i got a info size of table is change and size of index is not change.
Sew Row : 1000000 Size : 245000
Sew_idx1 Size : 120000
Sew_idx2 Size : 87000
Sew_idx3 Size : 30000
please explain the differences btween this logical & phisicall operations that we can see therir graphical icons in execution plan tab in Management Studio
I am using Full Text Index to index emails stored in BLOB column in a table. Index process parses stored emails, and, if there is one or more files attached to the email these documents get indexed too. In result when I'm querying the full text index for a word or phrase I am getting reference to the email containing the word of phrase if interest if the word was used in the email body OR if it was used in any document attached to the email.
How to distinguish in a Full Text query that the result came from an embedded document rather than from "main" document? Or if that's not possible how to disable indexing of embedded documents?
My goal is either to give a user an option if he or she wants to search emails (email bodies only) OR emails AND documents attached to them, or at least clearly indicate in the returned result the real source where the word or phrase has been found.
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.
My SSIS package is running very slow taking so much time to execute, One task is taking 2hr for inserting 100k records, i have disabled unused index still it is taking time.I am rebuilding/Refreshing indexes and stats once in month if i try to execute on daily basis will it improve my SSIS Package performance?
hello friends i have table1 and 200 coulumn of table1 :) i have 647.600 records. i entered my records to table1 with for step to code lines in one day :) i select category1 category2 and category3 with select code but i have just one index.. it is productnumber and it is primarykey..So my select code lines is so slow.. it is 7-9 second.. how can i select in 0.1 second ? Should i create index for category1 and category2 and category3 ? But i dont know create index.. My select code lines is below.. Could you learn me and show me index for it ?? or Could you learn me and show me fast Select code lines and index or etc ??? Also my search code line have a dangerous releated to attaching table1 with hackers :) cheersi send 3 value of treview1 node and childnode and child.childnode to below page.aspx :) Protected Sub Page_Load(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Me.Load If Not Me.IsPostBack Then If Request("TextBox1") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox1.Text = Request("TextBox1") End If If Request("TextBox2") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox2.Text = Request("TextBox2") End If If Request("TextBox3") IsNot Nothing ThenTextBox3.Text = Request("TextBox3") End If End If Dim searchword As String If Request("TextBox3") = "" And Request("TextBox2") = "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "'" End If If Request("TextBox3") = "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "'" End If If Request("TextBox3") <> "" And Request("TextBox2") <> "" And Request("TextBox1") <> "" Then searchword = "Select * from urunlistesi where kategori= '" & Request("TextBox1") & "' and kategori1= '" & Request("TextBox2") & "' and kategori2= '" & Request("TextBox3") & "'" End If SqlDataSource1.SelectCommand = searchword End Sub
I'm running a merge replication on a sql2k machine to 6 sql2k subscribers. Since a few day's only one of the merge agents fail's with the following error:
The merge process could not retrieve generation information at the 'Subscriber'. The index entry for row ID was not found in index ID 3, of table 357576312, in database 'PBB006'.
All DBCC CHECKDB command's return 0 errors :confused: I'm not sure if the table that's referred to in the message is on the distribution side or the subscribers side? A select * from sysobjects where id=357576312 gives different results on both sides . .
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.
One of the major syntax inside the SELECT statment is ..
WHERE FIELDA IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='A') AND WHERE FIELDB IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='B') AND WHERE FIELDC IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='C') AND WHERE FIELDD IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='D') AND WHERE FIELDE IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='E') AND WHERE FIELDF IN (SELECT PARAVALUE FROM PARATABLE WHERE SESSIONID = "XXXXX" AND PARATYPE='F')
(It's to compare the field content with some user input parameter inside a parameter table... )
I think properly is that the SELECT ... IN is causing much slowness in the sql statement. I have indexed FIELDA , FIELDB, FILEDC etc and those PARAVALUE and PARATYPE in the PARATABLE table. But perfromance is still slow and execution takes >20 seconds for 200000 rows of records.
Do any one know if still any chance to improvide the performance like this?
I'm trying to find whether there is a dmv or system view that can help me see the last time an index was rebuilt or created. Assuming I rebuilt an index using tsql commands (not a job with a history), is there a way to find out the last time that index was rebuilt?
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?
Found out a while back that my facts-tabel has an non-clustered index on its facts_id. In a bunch of procedures an update is executed against a facts_id unfortunately on it's facts-table. I was wondering if changing it into a clustered index is worth the effort / would make sense considering a +110 million facts and re-indexing the other indexes as well? Facts are loaded sequentially, so I would suspect them facts are in the ordered already?
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've couple of tables in my database. I created some clustered indexes and non-clustered indexes on these tables. But surprisingly, When I run sp_helpindex table_name, I see a lot of indexes starting from WA_ name. I dont know, what are these indexes and I believe, I havent created them.
Would like to know, how does these got created and is it appropriate to delete them?
sp_help pcCode Column_name ----------- ID_Code CodeType ID_Property ID_Reference Name ShortName ViewOrder ParentType Status
index_description index_keys ------------------------------------------------------------------------------clustered, unique, primary key located on PRIMARY ID_Code nonclustered, unique key located on PRIMARY ID_Property, CodeType, ShortName
Now
if I do
select Status from prcode where ID_Property = 7
Will SQl server use index created on 3 columns (becouse ID_Property first in the index ) or I need another index on ID_Property column only
This index "_WA_Sys_title_318258D2" was auto created by the system (nonclustered, statistics, auto create located on Primary). If I want it remove will I have to drop the table because the command Drop index... doesn't remove it, the message "because it does not exist in the system catalog." will come up and were can I turn of the command so it won't be create by the system ?
My question:- There is a join between tableA and tableB by a clustered index. Now, you are moving tables to a new database. You want to increase the performance of queries made by join.How? A..Create two filegroups FGA and FGB on separate disk. Place TA and its indexes on FGA, TB and its indexes on FGB or B. Create three filegroups FGA, FGB, FGC on three separate disks. Place TA on FGA, TB on FGB, and index of two table on FGC
A general rule of thumb when creating an index on a table is if the table is small don't bother indexing it because a table scan on a small table would be more efficient than an index seek.
Does anyone know at what limit a table is called "small" with relation to the above rule?
The Query optimizer does not use an index, when using that index reduces physical io reads from 8000 plus to 700 ( Approx ) ?
Background :
I have a performance issue that I'm investigating with a third party application. I have found that a query within a stored proc was using a table scan. I have created a new index, and forcing the optimizer to use this index ( thru a hint) reduces my execute time from 3 minutes to 5 seconds ( Within ISQL/W ).
I am hesistant to use the hint to change the stored procedure because the stored proc is part of the vendor's application code base.
I have also made sure that my index stats are up to date. I would appreciate it if anyone could tell me of any succeses with similar issues.
Hi, I have a query eg: select a,b,c,d from test where b = 2 and x = 0. Generally it takes 5 seconds to pull the data from 3 million rows table. If run the same query specially for only one value ie. where b = 10 it takes more than 40 seconds. I have checked the query plan it is not using index( On column b I have non clustered index). I have dropped and recreated the non clustered index for column b but no luck. When I am forcing it to use the Index [Index(IndexName)] then it is using Index. Can any one had this problem before. Could you please shed some light... on this.
I have a table that has a filepath as a field. I want to write a query such that I retrieve all of the filepaths ordered by just the filename portion of the filepath.
I'm assuming I need to use something like a LastIndexOf, but I can't seem to figure out how to do this. Any suggestions?
