SQL 2012 :: Clustered Index Failed To Build With Online ON
Nov 21, 2014
I have Enterprise version of SQL Server 2012 & SQL server 2008. I understand that Image/Text/NText is obsoleted and should not be used. That being said I dont understand why I couldnt rebuild the following clustered index, while I could with nonclustered index, this happens on both SQL 2008 and 2012. Here are the DDL.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Demo](
[ID] [int] NOT NULL,
[FK_ID] [uniqueidentifier] NOT NULL,
[SomeColumn] [nvarchar](100) NOT NULL,
[Image] [image] NULL
) ON [PRIMARY] TEXTIMAGE_ON [PRIMARY]
[code]...
An online operation cannot be performed for index 'IX1_Demo' because the index contains column 'Image' of data type text, ntext, image or FILESTREAM. For a non-clustered index, the column could be an include column of the index. For a clustered index, the column could be any column of the table. If DROP_EXISTING is used, the column could be part of a new or old index. The operation must be performed offline.
--Online rebuild works fine on non clustered index
ALTER INDEX IX2_Demo ON Demo REBUILD WITH(ONLINE = ON)--It seems to me that some how having the Image datatype column in the table is an issue. eventhough that column is not part of the index.
I was under impression that rebuilding index online largely means that the index will remain available for use during rebuild and my procs and query will be able to use it during rebuild. Also my understanding was that table will be locked very briefly while the schema change will be completing.But when I was rebuilding the clustered index online on a large table with some 3 million records, the table got locked and I was not able even to read the data from it for some 5 minutes. Then I cancelled the operation as it was production server and it was one of our main transaction table.
Is rebuilding index online supposed to work this way? The table has no other index.The parameteres I used are:
REBUILD WITH (PAD_INDEX = ON, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = ON, ONLINE = ON, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, FILLFACTOR = 95)
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?
We use below OLA script to do our index maintenance and one of our previous engineer designed below script on web edition and I have a question of how online index rebuild works when we have web edition. Does the online Index rebuild really works? I am thinking it only reorganizes and does not do online index rebuild.
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 want to know more details about the Clustered Index Delete. Is that Clustered Index Delete in the execution plan is good or bad or we can neglect that cost. Is there any way to avoid that clustered Index delete operator from the execution plan.
- What are your thoughts on adding clustered index on datetime (createdDate , native GUID) column. The data will be be physically organized in the clustered index allowing range operations to perform its duties. But will the GUID column make any impact ( drawbacks) should it be made part of the clustered key ?
The GUID column will provide the lookup with the required indexes to support.
I created a NC index as suggested by missing index DMV(of course I don't create them blindly). This one seemed to be a useful index but I now see from index usage stats that it only got scanned 50 times in 4 days.No seeks, no lookups. So is it a good idea keeping such index.The table on which this index is created is used more for reads and less for writes.
I am trying to tune a process that is running slowly. I analyzed the process using the Database Engine Tuning Advisor, and it recommended the creation of 3 indexes, all non-clustered:
1) ColA, include ColB 2) ColA, include ColC 3) ColA, include ColD
So... I created a single non-clustered index on:
4) ColA, include ColB, ColC, ColD
That should do the same thing, right? A look at my execution plan shows that the index I created is being scanned -- 3 times. What is puzzling me, though, is that the Database Engine Tuning Advisor is still recommending I create these 3 separate indexes, even with the index (4) that I created in existence.
If it matters, ColA, ColB, ColC and ColD are all int FKs.
I have a query which is primarily a victim of blocking and a blocker itself for other queries. I studied the plan for this and it shows a 42% cost on CI insert operation. The insert is happening on a table (Table A) that has a PK. This PK is not a running number. It is also a business key (primary key) in another master table (Table B).
My understanding is that the cost is heavy because -
1, this PK is not an incremental number. It could be any number not in a sequence. 2. while inserting into CI, there must be a scan happening to find out the location where the index will be inserted.
How can I reduce the cost?
1. Should I go for partitioning of this table Table A? I am trying to do this but I am not able to find any suitable partition key looking at the JOINS and filter clauses where this table is being used in the applicaiton. 2. Should I introduce a surrogate key (running number) as a primary key so that CI is faster ?
I have a table that has a clustered index that is only the identity column on the table. The table is somewhere around 200K rows and has 3800 pages in the index. We run our index maintenance every other day on this database using Ola's scripts and this index is rebuilt because it is 40-60% fragmented after 2 days. Overall, this isn't really too much of a problem since the index rebuild doesn't take too long, but I am puzzled as to how this index is getting fragmented since the only column in it is the identity.
CREATE TABLE [dbo].[Example]( [ExampleID] [int] IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL, [ExampleCode] [varchar](10) NOT NULL, [ForeignID] [int] NOT NULL, [AnotherID] [int] NOT NULL,
[code]...
) ON [PRIMARY]There is nothing strange like updates to the identity happening and while some records are deleted, there has only been about 20,000 in the life of the table (months). Not enough to account for the level of fragmentation that we're seeing on the index.About the only thing I can think of that would cause fragmentation on this index in this scenario are:
1. Page splits caused by starting with a small value in one of the VARCHARs and later inserting a larger value 2. Page splits caused by the NULLABLE column, ExampleDate, starting with NULLs and later updating them to a date.
For #1, I had development check the update scenarios for the varchar columns, especially the varchar(1000) one, and they didn't see it as a common thing where the values would go from small (or empty) to large.
For #2, I checked and found that the only value for that column in the table is NULL so while it always starts as NULL, it never gets updated to anything else.
I've tried looking at sys.dm_db_index_operational_stats and the leaf_update_count is around 300,000, but unless those updates are causing page splits, I don't see how they would contribute to fragmentation.
I have a clustered index which shows as having a fragmentation level of 66% according to sys.dm_db_index_ physical_ stats.avg_ fragmentation_ in_ percent.
But no matter what I try the fragmentation level doesn't budge. And yes I'm updating the statistics after each attempt.Its not a huge issue the table only has 348 records. I'm testing a fixing fragmentation maintenance script. In Ironing out the syntax of my script I've fixed the fragmentation of indexes of over 65 % anyway..I've come across and index that I can't defragment. I've tried
ALTER INDEX ALL ON [GRIDINFO] REBUILD WITH (FILLFACTOR = 90)
The command complete successfully yet the avg_fragmentation_in_percent doesn't change. The table also has a nonclustered index. I've gleaned through all the statements of 'this will have no effect if' but so far I've not spotted a reason why this index won't defrag.The script has been modified to remove schema and database names for the forum.
dbcc showcontig('GRIDINFO','IDX_GRIDINFO1') with tableresults , all_levels go DBCC SHOWCONTIG ('GRIDINFO') go sp_helpindex 'GRIDINFO'
I have a table with clustered index on that. I have only 5 columns in that table. Execution plan is showing that Index scan occurred. What are the cause of the Index scan how can we change that to index seek?
I am giving that kind of similar query below
SELECT @ProductID= ProductID FROM Product WITH (NOLOCK) WHERE SalesID= '@salesId' and Product = 'Clothes '
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
I have a view that joins a dozen tables with a million rows added per year by an application. I want to materialize it. The view is always filtered by date first on reports, then there are a few key transaction keys, but then many other fields required to make each row unique. I don't want to add these columns since they are large, many, not used for sorting or filtering, and may not define uniqueness in a future application design. I need a uniqueifier that is application agnostic. I prefer a bigint. So to store the materialized view ideally for reporting, I want to add the following clustered index to materialize the view:
CREATE unique CLUSTERED INDEX idx1 ON [dbo].[myview](myDate, key1, key2, key3, id bigint identity(1,1) NOT NULL)
And I get this error:
Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 3 Incorrect syntax near 'bigint'.
I have created NONCLUSTERED index on table but my report is taking more time that's why i created columnstore NONCLUSTERED index on the same table but i have one query, if any table have row and column level index(same columns in index) . Which index query will consider.
I understand that minimal logging can occur on a non clustered indexed heap as long as [URL] ...
*not replicated
*tablock is used
*table is empty
The following test seems to contradict this
In the test I create a non indexed heap, insert some record and check the log, then repeat the test on an indexed heap.
The results suggest that even though the conditions for minimal logging into a indexed heap are met, minimal logging is not happening although it does happen on an non indexed heap. What am I doing wrong?
CREATE DATABASE logtest GO USE logtest GO CREATE TABLE test (field varchar(100)) GO CHECKPOINT
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 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,
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 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 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?
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 building three partitioned, clustered column store tables.I was researching whether it was faster to populate a staging table and swap it into the partitioned table or to directly insert into the partitioned table.The first partition for the three tables will have:
Table F: 50M rows, 6 columns wide, partitioned on a date column (1 date, 2 bigint keys, and two varchar columns) Table D1: 50M rows, 150 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint Table D2: 19M rows, 300 columns wide, partitioned on a bigint
If build the data that would go into partition 1 in a non partitioned column store, I get these table sizes:
That's a 20% difference on Table F, the narrow table.Looking at the row groups, I see 47 identical row groups in partition 1 and the unpartitioned table, but the average "size_in_bytes" is consistently 20% smaller in the unpartitioned table.
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 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 ??
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.
Anyone using the ONLINE=ON option on large DB's? We have a db of 5 GB and we are doing some load testing for SQL 2005. We are modifying the Index scripts for the upgrade. We will run a load with the ONLINE=ON option but just wanted to find out if anyone already is doing it on a similar scale db and has seen any issues? Also, we have auto-update stats off at the DB level. Does setting the ONLINE=ON require turning this auto-update stats to ON too? I didnt see anything to that effect in BOL, so was wondering.
Thanks for any feedback.
Dinakar Nethi SQL Server MVP ************************ Life is short. Enjoy it. ************************ http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/dinakar/
