Is there any way to update a column in a clustered index without incurring
the cost of reordering.
Example:
Create table TableX (
Col1 int,
Col2 smalldatetime,
Col3 varchar(10))
go
create clustered indext ix_test on tableX (Col2, Col1)
go
update TableX set Col2 = '2004-12-07'
-- Yes I specifically left off the criteria to update every row.
It would seem to me in this situation that the data types require the same
storage, all rows are being updated in one transaction, and there's no new
to reorder since all will be the same.
In MySQL it's simple to insert new columns in specific locations in a table like this
sql Code:
Original - sql Code
alter table foo add column bar integer not null default 0 after baz
ALTER TABLE foo ADD COLUMN bar integer NOT NULL DEFAULT 0 AFTER baz
But attempting to do the same thing in MSSQL fails with a syntax error on the word "after." I can insert columns in MSSQL but only if they are added to the end. I looked at the Microsoft insert documentation here but don't see any way to replicate the above MySQL command.
Is there any way to do this in MSSQL? Or do I have to completely recreate all my tables from scratch?
Dear All, i've observed one particular table, one column is having clustered and non clustered index. is it ok? or i need to drop the non clustered column?
the table has 16 columns and at present 8 million records are there. per day approxmately 60000 rows will be getting into the table. it has another 3 non clustered indexes.
please suggest me.
Arnav Even you learn 1%, Learn it with 100% confidence.
Is this the way to create one of my columns clustered. The books that I have all use stored procedure I only want to use regular sql commands. Is this possible?
Users can approach their userprofile on my site using: www.mysite.com/name=peterName is a unique value within my database (db type: nvarchar(50))Now, I have created a clustered index on the username column.However, IMHO its faster to create a clustered index on the (also unique) usercode column since that is of type int.BUT since a user can approach my site based on username I feel that I HAVE to live with this setback in performance....Is that true or is there a better way to solve this issue?
I am testing out the performance benefits of utilizing include column(s) to avoid RID lookups and so far it looks very promising. I am able to reduce the cost of the query significantly and execution time is very good. However my non-clustered index is part of the primary key constraint and I am wondering if it is possible to create the include column as part of the primary key. Or do I have to drop the pk constraint and create unique non-clustered index with include column?
I have a database where records are Inserted by an external process. There is no updating or deleting of the data once inserted. The table in question has a Clustered Index on the Machine_ID (integer) (data is from manufacturing processes). Each record bears a start and end time. Most queries involve the Machine, a time span (start time between to points in time), the Downtime Cause, and the Running Mode.
I want to add an index on the Start Time, the Downtime Cause, and the Runtime Mode.
My question is: should this new index also contain the Machine_id column or does the existence of the Clustered Index already on that column negate its need in the new index?
RC - Dedicated to only creating original mistakes!
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 5 million rows of table, and going to create Non Clustered Index for Datetime values column. Creating Non clustered Index on Datetime value column will affect performance or not.
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.
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've been asked to look at using Clustered Columnstore indexes for one of my tables. The table contains about 5 million records with about 50 columns. The max field size is a NVarchar(MAX) with max field length currently of about 4k characters. It's only about a gigabyte's worth of data. The table is about 50% R/W operations. Currently, we have multiple indexes with no clustered index due to some performance issues that happened in the past. I've been attempting to determine if it's even really worth it to switch over. I feel that the table is still fairly small with minimal columns and don't believe there will be any noticeable improvement over traditional indexing.
I would like to put a Clustered Index on a date column in a current heap, but one question/concern.This heap every month has thousands of rows deleted and even more added later. How much of an issue will this cause the Clustered Index as far as page splits? I was thinking Fill Factor of 70%.I would normally just test and still will on Dev box, but my Dev box is much smaller than production as far as power.
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 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?
I need to generate weekly report for data usage for my c drive and d drive.the graph should be likefor a particuluar date, I want to display graph like this. even if I change secondary axis, my c: drive used and free space not coming in single column. it comes like c: drive used space, on top of it d: drive used space and in adjacent column c: drive free space, on top of it d: drive free space.I don't want to add two category one for date and another for driver names.
I have a database in which I have some tables in which I have implemented Clustered columnstore Index. How to find the fragmentation levels of all these indexes via a single T-SQl script
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 am trying to use an indexed view to allow for aggregations to be generated more quickly in my test data warehouse. The Fact Table I am creating the indexed view on is a partitioned clustered columnstore index.
I have created a view with the following code:
ALTER view dbo.FactView with schemabinding as select local_date_key, meter_key, unit_key, read_type_key, sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [s_read_value], sum(isnull(cost,0)) as [s_cost] , sum(isnull(easy_target_value,0)) as [s_easy_target_value], sum(isnull(hard_target_value,0)) as [s_hard_target_value] , sum(isnull(read_value,0)) as [a_read_value], sum(isnull(temperature,0)) as [a_temp], sum(isnull(co2,0)) as [s_co2] , sum(isnull(easy_target_co2,0)) as [s_easy_target_co2] , sum(isnull(hard_target_co2,0)) as [s_hard_target_co2], sum(isnull(temp1,0)) as [a_temp1], sum(isnull(temp2,0)) as [a_temp2] , sum(isnull(volume,0)) as [s_volume], count_big(*) as [freq] from dbo.FactConsumptionPart group by local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key
I then created an index on the view as follows:
create unique clustered index IDX_FV on factview (local_date_key, read_type_key, meter_key, unit_key)
I then followed this up by running some large calculations that required use of the aggregation functionality on the main fact table, grouping by the clustered index columns and only returning averages and sums that are available in the view, but it still uses the underlying table to perform the aggregations, rather than the view I have created. Running an equivalent query on the view, then it takes 75% less time to query the indexed view directly, to using the fact table. I think the expected behaviour was that in SQL Server Enterprise or Developer edition (I am using developer edition), then the fact table should have used the indexed view. what I might be missing, for the query not to be using the indexed view?
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 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'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.
