I have a table which has cluster index on col1 column. If i insert 10 into my table what would be cluster index key value?Is it going to be 10 as well? How do i get cluster index key value?
View 5 RepliesHi all,
We have many tables which have cluster index on column with datatype 'Char(200)'.
Does anyone have script to change cluster index to noncluster for all user tables which have clustered index on a column with 'char(200)' datatype.
Thanks,
Deepak
Wanted to know about difference between cluster and non cluster index with example.
When to use cluster index and non cluster index .
Dead lock is coming in select query in application because of index. It is identified after enabling trace in database and identified by reading deadlock xml file. After index removal, deadlock is not coming in same query. But it is affecting query's performance slightly. Is it correct way to remove index if dead lock is coming because of index?
View 3 Replies View RelatedWhat are the steps to work on when a single database need to migrate from one cluster to another.
The size of the database is 210GB,
5 datafiles, 2 log files and 5 file groups.. our migration strategy is Backup/Copy/Restore.
I ran into problem while trying to install SQL Server 2008 to join to another node in a failover cluster ,you will find here the configuration doc and installation details. URL...
View 4 Replies View RelatedIF you need to change the IP Address of a SQL Server Failover Cluster instance, here is the steps:
1. Open up Failover Cluster manager.
2. Expand the MS Cluster Instance that your SQL Cluster instance resides on.
3. Expand Services and applications.
4. Select the SQL Server Service.
5. In the main window pane (Middle Screen), you should see your SQL Server Cluster name, expand the plus to the left of it.
6. Under your SQL Server Cluster name, you should now see an 'IP address' section, right click on it and go to properties.
7. In the properties pane, you can change your IP address by entering a static IP.....or assigning a DHCP enabled IP.
if it is supported to install Reporting Services on both the active and passive nodes in an SQL Server Failover Cluster and use the non-active node as a warm standby?We have relatively simple reporting requirements so the idea would be that if Node 1 went down, we could just repoint our users are Node 2 temporarily. Both reporting services instances would be configured to target the same SSRS database running on the SQL Cluster.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWe have a SQL 2008 Instance existing on active/passive cluster with 2 nodes running on Windows server 2008 R2 Ent. Edn.
Now we need to install another SQL instance on this cluster. So what are the prerequisites apart from new IP address? Do we need shared disks or can the existing disks can be utilized?
After reading some comments here I decided to look at tables to see if any had a clustered index that was a unique identifier. Yep. So if I have a table with a unique identifier as the primary key/clustered index and an identity column that is indexed, I would like to make the identity a clustered index (maybe even the primary key) and make the unique identifier a unique non-clustered index (not the primary key).
Does this sound reasonable?If I do this will I need to drop and recreate the other indexes? Or maybe just rebuild the other indexes?
Currently:
CREATE TABLE Payments (
IDX INT IDENTITY(1,1) NOT NULL,
GUID UNIQUEIDENTIFIER NOT NULL DEFAULT(NEWID()),
.....
-- many other columns
);
GO
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PAYMENTS] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_PAYMENTS_GID] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED ([GUID] ASC);
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Payments_ID] ON [dbo].[PAYMENTS] ([IDX] ASC);
GO
Would like:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[PAYMENTS] ADD CONSTRAINT [PK_PAYMENTS_IDX] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (IDX ASC);
GO
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Payments_GUID] ON [dbo].[PAYMENTS] (GUID ASC);
GO
I've yet to use partitioning in a production environment, and pretty much last ran any partitioning related code a few years back when looking at certification; so I'm definitely not an expert on the matter and only loosely clued up on the concepts.
I've recently started with a new employer, and they have just implemented a new system for sms messaging. The database tables tracking the sms messages being sent are going to get big and so they have created decided to implement partitioning on some of the tables using a partition scheme on the CreatedDate column; the DBA involved in designing the partitioning has left and I'm picking this up.
The relevant DDL for the table is below:-
CREATE TABLE [Message].[Sms](
[SmsId] [bigint] IDENTITY(250000001,1) NOT NULL,
[CreatedDate] [datetime] NOT NULL CONSTRAINT [DF_Sms:CreatedDate] DEFAULT (getdate()),
CONSTRAINT [PK_Sms:SmsId] PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED
[code]....
There are some issues with the above that I will be addressing seperately (e.g. the clustered index should be unique as it contians the unique key, and the fillfactors are daft), but my concerns for this post are below.
1) How to define the Primary Key and enforce it's uniqueness whilst trying to ensure it's aligned with the partition in order to be able to switch out old data once an as yet undefined retention period has passed. In books online it states:- "If it is not possible for the partitioning column to be included in the unique key, you must use a DML trigger instead to enforce uniqueness. " Books online - Special Guidelines for Partitioned Indexes. However, I'm not sure what this means, nor how I create the primary key to use the partition function seeing as it doesn't have the CreatedDate in the unique key?
2) The original partition function was envisaged as the following:-
CREATE PARTITION FUNCTION [DateFunction](datetime) AS RANGE
LEFT FOR VALUES (N'2014-01-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2014-04-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2014-07-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2014-10-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-01-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-04-01T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-04-02T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-04-03T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-04-04T00:00:00.000'
, N'2015-04-05T00:00:00.000')
GO
There is a procedure that has been created and scheduled daily that will create a new partition for each day, and then merge these together at the end of the quarter. My understanding of partitioning is that this is a bad idea, as it will result in merging several populated partitions together. Is my understanding correct? If so, I'm planning on removing the day partitions at the end of the function, and simply adding quarterly partitions, maintaining a spare empty partition at the end of the table. Would this make more sense?
I just did index defragmentation for some databases include MSDB . I notice there are 3 indexes from MSDB database that fragmented quickly ( I did rebuild last nite at 10 PM - > fragmentation level becomes zero but today at 9 am it become 80 % ).The indexes are backupsetuuid, backup media family uuid, backupmediasetuuid. I am thinking to set the fill factor for those indexes = 80 respectively.
View 6 Replies View RelatedWe are adding 4-5 indexes to one database and dropping 2 unused indexes. I don't have proper testing environment. How to monitor these indexes changes? Do we need to run any baseline but we don't get load all the time same load all the days
View 8 Replies View RelatedDoes including non-key columns work for the performance of an index?
View 8 Replies View RelatedGive a user table ‘MyTable’. How to know whether the table contains a non-unique clustered index by using SQL query?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI am new to mssql server. There is a table on one of my databases that occupies a lot of space. And the space usage is as follows: (all values in KB)
reserved: 42329064
data: 16272288
index: 26050032
unused: 6744
This table takes up almost 80% of my database size, and the information is this table just captures the time spent by a user on the website(not very critical data)
I would like to know how to delete the entire index (which is what is occupying most space) to free up disk space. the index is a clustered index.
I run a query
select col1, col2, col3, col4
from Table
where col2=5
order by col1
I have a primary key on the column.The execution plan showing the clustered index scan cost 30% & sort cost 70%..When I run the query I got missing index hint on col2 with 95% impact.So I created the non clustered index on col2.The total executed time decreased by around 80ms but I didn't see any Index name that is using in the execution plan.After creating the index also I am seeing same execution plan
The execution plan showing the clustered index scan cost 30% & sort cost 70% but I can see the total time is reducing & Logical reads on that table is reducing.I am sure that index is useful but why there is no change in the execution plan?
I am extremely new to database design, and I ran into a problem that I know comes up often, however has many opinions...
Basically I have a table that is going to have 50+ columns. The natural key on this table is actually 8 columns wide, 4 of them being Varchar columns by default. (varchar(50)'s).
I have added an identity column, (1,1) to the table, however I put the clustered index on the 8 natural keys... My plan is to rebuild the clustered index once nightly when the system isn't in use (after 7 pm).
I know others would say it would be better to have the clustered key on the 1,1 column and then add indexes on the other 8 fields... However I don't quite understand why honestly...
Every single query against this table will use the 8 columns, and will NOT use the Identity column (1,1) because they are calls from other systems that do not know the Identity column....
Therefore if your database is set up for query speed, and every single query has to have a value for 8 columns to get a valid result, does it make sense to put a clustered index over the 8 columns?
If not why? Why is putting a clustered index on an identity column (that will literally never be used in a query) a better solution?
Table Name: Denominator
Already has the following constraint:
PK_Denominatorclustered, unique, primary key located on PRIMARY DenominatorID
How can I add a unique key that will cover the 3 fields --> MemberID,MeasureID,TimePeriodID
I also want to know whether we can include the " WITH ( IGNORE_DUP_KEY=ON ) "
that violates the targets referential integrity?I am getting error Msg 2601, Level 14, State 1, Line 1Cannot insert duplicate key row in object XXX with unique index YYY.The statement has been terminated.I would like to know if there is a way to examine or determine what source rows are not conforming to the unique index.I'm fine with dropping and reestablishing the index, and i know its cataloged somewhere because during index creation, the error message does tell you the row details clobbering index creation. Ideally i would like to be able to trap all the failing rows and see what i can do about rehabilitating them or ignoring them or managing them some other way, but id like to know what the server knows when it will not create the index.
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhat is the best way to forecastestimate space for non-clustered index on a table?
Example :
Table name : Test123
Row : 170000000
Reserved : 18000000 KB
Data : 70000000 KB
Index: 40000000 KB
Note: Test123 already has clustered index and 2 non clustered indexes.
I have query with an expensive Key Lookup on a joined table. The predicate is the column that I'm joining on, and the output list contains two columns from the joined table.
I've created a basic non-clustered index covering the predicate column and include-ing the two output columns. However, the execution plan ignores this, and insists on using the primary key of the joined table to do the expensive key lookup. I've tried adding the included columns to the index directly and there's no change. I've also tried running dbcc freeproccache and no change.
We noticed a deadlock 3-4 weeks ago on a table (table1) and deadlock graph was captured.
When I am analyzing the deadlock graph, page number using DBCC PAGE, I am getting the object id for a different table (table2). But deadlock graph shows the name of the object as table1.
Is it possible that subsequent defragmentation of indexes would have caused the respective page id to got re-allocated to a different table? I checked the deadlock graph lately only after 3-4 weeks.
I have inherited a db with no clustered indexes, but composite indexes on each table. The DB has about 500 tables(1-5 gig when fully loaded), but on a given session a user might only insert 1 or 2 records in 6-7 of the tables, with about 20-30 current users 8-5PM. THe DB is kinda of a mix between low-end OLTP and DSS. For space and performance I was going to drop the existing indexes and replace them with clustered indexes. Any opinions or gotchas appreciated
View 1 Replies View RelatedHi All,
One of my client having 1 million(nearly) records in a table.
I defined the table as below
1) Created table with one col(we can name it as "ID") having IDENTITY
2) Using "alter table", I created CLUSTERED PRIMARY KEY Constraint on Same field (ID)
3) The Primary key having 2 ref with another 2 tables
Now the issue is when we create or define a primary key (With Clustered Option) automatically cluster Index will be created on defined table
As such table having huge data whenever any updation or insertion against that particular table taking huge amount of time, because the cluster Index trying re-paging whole data. Because of re-paging each and every time "Transaction Log also growing in huge" (database is in full recovery mode and client wants in same mode only)
Data partitioning not posible because whole data related and current live data
I tried following options with vain
1) To Clear transaction log I suggested to take regular log backup's
2) I tried to drop cluster index and tried to implement non clustered index
Drop and re-create index is take taking huge amount of time
Even in this process I have to Re_Index remaining Index's also
Pls give me any other solution or suggestion in this regard
with Thanks & Regards
Bhaskara
We have few tables where we do truncate load or only do insert activities , why do the cluster index get fragmented very often to > 80%?
View 9 Replies View Related
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
As we all know that cluster index physically sort the table. Now what will happen if I insert a new row in the table which voilating the sort rule of table.
Will it inserte at the end of table or table is reordered as cluster index always keep table in physically sorted . Please cleaar my doubt.
I have a Windows 2008 R2 Always on Cluster with 3 nodes (two in the primary site and one in the DR site).
Primary Site:
    -Primary Site Server1
    -Primary Site Server2
DR Site 1 (to be decommed):
    -DR Site Server1
Our company is planning on decommissioning the DR site. But before we do this, we want to add a 4th site to the cluster. Migrate the data...and then decommission the original DR Site.
Is it possible to have this configuration:
Primary Site:
    -Primary Site Server1
    -Primary Site Server2
DR Site 1 (to be decommed):
    -DR Site Server1
DR Site 2 (NEW DR Site):
    -DR Site Server1
IF this is possible, do I simply add the new DR site to the existing cluster (same steps as adding the first DR node to the cluster when the cluster was originally configured? or are there special steps?
Hi
We are planning to upgrade the SQL Server in our production environment from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005. This is a 4 Node cluster environment with 3 Databases on 3 Virtual instances. The main requirement is to achieve this with no/minimal downtime.
Could you please suggest or direct me to any documentation for the best practices used to upgrade such an environment?
Thanks
Priyanka
I´ve been reading that SQL Server 2012 Always On is dependent on having a Windows Failover Cluster setup. Is that correct ?
View 6 Replies View Related
We're upgrading a SQL Server 2000 cluster (Active/Passive) running on Windows 2000 Server to a SQL Server 2005 Cluster running on Windows Server 2003. We can't purchase new hardware and we have no spare hardware. We also need to move from Windows 2000 Server to Windows 2003 Server at the same time. We want to keep downtime to a bare minimum.
What we were thinking was the following steps... Anyone try this?
1. Break the link between the servers.
2. Install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on one side along with SQL Server 2005. While this step is running, the active node would still be live on Windows 2000 Server and SQL Server 2000 serving our customers.
3. Restore a copy of a backup from the active production side to the node we're upgrading and at that point we would bring the active node down, switching the active node to be the newly upgraded server.
4. As a final step, the old active node would now have the link to it broken, we would install a fresh copy of windows 2003 server on it and sql server 2005. At this point we would bring it back into the cluster and the cluster would be complete again.
Thoughts?
Friends -
Need your help and guidence for doing upgrading SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
Let me explain my current environment.
1. Currently SQL Server 2000 Cluster environment is running on Windows 2000 Server we need to upgrade this to SQL Server 2005 on Windows 2003 Server. >>> Production environment.
My Plans:
1. On Testing Environment Install SQL Server 2000 cluster on Windows 2003 Server and do a restore of databases from the produciton environment.
2. Upgrade In-Place from SQL Server 2000 Cluster to SQL Server 2005 Cluster.
My doubts
1. Can i install SQL Server 2000 Cluster on Windows 2003 Server. Is it possible or not.
Please advise me and correct my steps.
Cheers
VSH