I have a table partitioned by month. There are no primary key. There is another table with the same structure that I use to load data for the current month. I can perform partition switch with no problem.
I created non unique index on integer field in both tables. After this change partition switch does not work anymore. Here is an error that I am getting:
'ALTER TABLE SWITCH' statement failed. The table 'dbo.test' is
partitioned while index 'IX_test' is not partitioned."
A customer wants to implement table partitioning on a replicated table.
They want to hold 13 months of data in the table and roll off the earliest/oldest month to an identical archive table. The table has a date field and partitioning by month makes sense all around.
So SWITCH PARTITION is the obvious solution to this, except for the fact that the table is replicated (transactional w/no subscriber updates).
What are his architectural or practical solutions to using table partitioning and replication?
Msg 2601, Level 14, State 1, Procedure DFP_report_load, Line 161 Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dbo.DFP_Reports_History' with unique index 'ix_report_history_creative_id'.
The duplicate key value is (40736326382, 1, 2015-07-03, 67618862, 355324). Msg 3621, Level 0, State 0, Procedure DFP_report_load, Line 161
The statement has been terminated.
Exception in Task: Cannot insert duplicate key row in object 'dbo.DFP_Reports_History' with unique index 'ix_report_history_creative_id'. The duplicate key value is (40736326382, 1, 2015-07-03, 67618862, 355324).
A UNIQUE INDEX must inherently impose a unique constraint and a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT is most likely implemented via a UNIQUE INDEX. So what is the difference? When you create in Enterprise Manager you must select one or the other.
What's the difference in the effect of the followings: CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX and ALTER TABLE dbo.titles ADD CONSTRAINT titleind UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED
I found there're two settings in Indexs/Keys dialog box of the management studio, Is Unique, and Type. The DDL statements above are generated by setting Is Unique to yes plus Type to Index, and just Type to Unique Key, respectively. What's the difference between them?
I have created a horizontal partition view from 4 physical tables. just wondering how the index works in the partition view: 1) If I need to build an index on a column, do I need to build it on all 4 physical tables? or I just build it on the view? or build it on view and 4 physical tables?
2) If I build it on view, and if I add a table into view, do I need to recreate all indices on the view?
Hi all, My question is about Indexs on partition where I have a table with say 5 partitions and I want to create index on partitions and not on the whole table. The objective is that if i create a table level index on a partition table and eventually if I drop one of the partition or add another partition, what will happen to the index? 1) Do I need to re-create the index for the partion which are left after deleting one partition? 2) If a partition is added do I need re-create the index for the whole table or just create the index for that particular new partition?
Let me know if there is any white paper or code available. I have gone through the white paper published "SQL Server 2005" Partitioned Tables and Indexes Author: Kimberly L. Tripp, Founder, SQLskills.com
Hi everyone, I need urgent help to resolve this issue... As far as the performance goes which one is better.. Unique Index(col1, col2) OR Unique constraint(col1, col2) ? Unique constraint automatically adds a unique index and unique index takes care of uniqueness then whats the use of unique constraint ?
BOL says a unique constraint is preferred over a unique index. It also states that a unique constraint creates a unique index. What then is the difference between the two, and why is a constraint preferred over the index?
hi team, .Can i create umique constraint with out unique index.when i am creating a unique constraint sql creates a unique index (default) can i have only unique constraint ?
Is there anyway to drop an index at the partition level in SQL 2005 ?There is a way to rebuild at the partition level (assuming this creates)i.e.: alter index ALL on dbo.LP_CQ rebuild partition = 229 ;I want to:1. Drop index(es) at partition level (partitioned by period value (1..400)).2. bulk copy data in (can be 1 or more periods per day).3. Rebuild at Partition level.Thx
I have one partition table "tablea" with partition key dateentry on yearly basis and table have four partition with name y2013,y2014,y2013,y2015 with one partition schema . How I can create partition index on tablea that first time create partition index and next time I want to rebuild index only on y2015 partition .
A common partitioning scenario is when the partition column has the same value for every record in the partition, as opposed to a range of values. Am I the only person who wonders why there isn't an option to automatically partition a table based on the unique values of the partition column? Instead of defining a partition function with constants, you ought to be able to just give it the column and be done. This would be particularly valuable for tables partitioned on a weekly or monthly date; when new data is added it could simply create a new partition if one doesn't already exist.
if this question is inappropriate here, I apologize (it's at least obliquely related). I have been using ssno as a unique key in a datawarehouse I have been working on because all of the component systems have had it. I now have a database to add where ssno is not available. I have first, last address, city, state,zip and dob.
Question is, how to construct a unique identifier from those components. If not unique, then at least usable?
This is for SQL 2000 (SP 2) using Enterprise Manager. I have a table with a unique index comprised of several int fields. The index needs to include an additional bit field that is part of the table. But when I go to modify the index, the bit field name doesn't appear in the Column Name list. Can anyone shed any light on the problem? Thanks.
I have read that you get better performance with unique indexes rather than non-unique indexes. I have experimented with this in SQL 2000. I have two identical tables (with about 250000 rows each) with a 12-character unique column. In one table I define it as a regular index and in the other I define it as a unique index. No matter what I try I get identical performance, and the query optimizer shows an identical plan. I even tried clauses such as WHERE 1 < (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM TheTable WHERE key_column = OtherTable.key_column) which should obviously return nothing if TheTable.key_column is unique. However the query still ran a long time no matter if the index is unique or not. I have also tried a unique constraint instead of a unique index and got the same (non)results. Can anyone come up with an example where creating a unique index actually makes a performance difference?
I'm trying to weight the pros and cons of unique constraints and unique indexes. I understand that creating a unique constraint also creates an index. If that is the case, why not just use a unique index? Could someone give me an example of when you would want an unique constraint over an unique indexes
HiI tried the following from the help file...When you create or modify a unique index, you can set an option toignore duplicate keys. If this option is set and you attempt to createduplicate keys by adding or updating data that affects multiple rows(with the INSERT or UPDATE statement), the row that causes theduplicates is not added or, in the case of an update, discarded.For example, if you try to update "Smith" to "Jones" in a table where"Jones" already exists, you end up with one "Jones" and no "Smith" inthe resulting table. The original "Smith" row is lost because anUPDATE statement is actually a DELETE followed by an INSERT. "Smith"was deleted and the attempt to insert an additional "Jones" failed.The whole transaction cannot be rolled back because the purpose ofthis option is to allow a transaction in spite of the presence ofduplicates.But when I did it the original "Smith" row was not lost.I am doing something wrong or is the help file incorrect.Dan
When I add a unique key constraint to column in SQL 6.5 why does it alsocreate an index. e.g. In the table subaccounts I added a unique keyconstraint for the column login and SQL creates an index with the nameUQ_SubAccounts_2__19 (UKC).Does this also mean that there is no need to create an index for thiscolumn?thxMansoor
I have a question. I need to make a double unique index on a table. for example: I have 2 columns, ColumnA and ColumnB. ColumnA can have duplicate values, so is ColumnB, but it should be impossible to have duplicate values on both columns. for example:
When not using any enforced relationships in a database (which I know we should, but I like most of you, have inherited sub-optimal design), is there any real difference between using a Primary Key (to which no foreign keys are tied) and using a Unique Clustered index?
Is there a simple way to find properties of an index for a table? Specifically I am looking for the unique property. I currently have code to to do this, however I feel like there must be some easier way.
I am using .net 2005 and SQL 2005 coding in c#. Thanks for any help!
Code Snippet
_conn.Open(); SqlCommand cmd = new SqlCommand("sp_helpindex", _conn); cmd.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; cmd.Parameters.Add(new SqlParameter("@objname", "TABLENAME")); SqlDataAdapter da = new SqlDataAdapter(cmd); da.Fill(results);
foreach (DataRow row in results.Tables[0].Rows)
{
ArrayList names = new ArrayList();
DataTable dtUnique = new DataTable();
SqlCommand cmd2 = this._conn.CreateCommand();
cmd2.CommandText = String.Format("SELECT INDEXPROPERTY(OBJECT_ID('TABLENAME'), 'INDEXNAME', 'IsUnique') AS isUnique");
I have created the companyid as Primary Key.How to create a unique secondary index on Company Name. To avoid inserting duplicate records in database with the same companyname. I m creatin database in sql server 2005 with asp.net C# 2005. I know one way is write the query if not exists at the time of insert.But,i want to know is there anyother way to make a unique secondary index for the companyname on the company tablethanxs
I need to write a script which will respond differently if a table's index forces uniqueness.
I am using SQL 7.0 and I am using the [sysindexes] table of my database to examine those indexes. I am using the [id] field from the [sysobjects] table for the table I am examining and I am using that [id] field to find like-valued [id] fields in the [sysindexes] table.
My problem is that I can't seem to determine, from an examination of the [sysindexes] table, whether, or not, an index is unique.
When adding an index, and checking the unique property of that index, the values that I get in the [status] field of [sysindexes] are different from the values which are supposed to show, at least according to the sysindexes (T-SQL) entry in SQL Server Books Online.
For instance, I have a table which combines two text fields which comprise the only key on a table. The unique and clustered boxes are checked in the index setup screen. When I look in the [sysindexes] table, the value in the [status] field is 2113554, which is not a value I see in the books online page. According to my books online page, a unique index should have a value of 2 in the [status] field and a clustered index should have a value of 16 in the [status] field. My assumption is that I should see a value of 18 in that [status] field, not 2113554.
I looks like the books online entry might be out-of-date because the field that is labeled [reserved1] in my books online page, is labeled [StatVersion] in my actual [sysindexes] table. That [StatVersion] field looks suspiciously like a Status Version field, possibly indicating that the Status field has undergone some sort of version revision?
