indexes

Again, following on from my previous posts about Key Lookups, I wanted to dispel a myth that I see used in production systems everywhere… that single column indexes are useful. In the majority of cases they just plain aren’t. Get used to it.

Following on from my last post about Key Lookups I wanted to emphasize the performance problems that you can get when these appear in your execution plans.

I was asked this the other day and it’s actually something that I’m surprised hasn’t come up before as people all seem to know it’s a bad thing, but many people don’t know why and don’t even know what one is in the first place.

Yet more partitioning stuff… this time it’s the fact that we can rebuild an index on just a single partition of a table… and online. Now that’s handy!!!

This follows on directly from the previous post in regard to ensuring that you use UNIQUE if possible on an index as I’ve also found that not having UNIQUE can make quite a hefty difference when using UNION ALL.

This is a bug bear of mine but something which I see all over the place in people’s code… if you’re going to create a clustered index on a table (including temp tables) and the key you’re using is unique, then let SQL Server know. You’ll be surprised how much difference it makes.

We know that sp_spaceUsed is a great way to obtain a few simple figures about a table such as row count, table size, and index size… but these are all cumulative. Therefore what happens if you want to know the specific size of an individual index?

This is just a little something to look out for when administrating a database as I’ve seen it catch a few people out.


Basically it’s all about making sure you have the correct fill factor for your indexes so that you don’t unnecessarily bloat your databases as a whole.

I had a question recently in which someone asked the following:


"I'm trying to determine what the overall performance difference would be in the following situation…

Assume I have a large table, 500M records that have a non-unique RecordID column (eg. RecordID (BIGINT), SubID (BIGINT), Name, Detail)

I'm only ever going to select * from Table where RecordID = ?

If I create a clustedIndex on RecordID the execution plan shows only two steps

Select + Clustered Index Seek

If I leave the table as a HEAP and create a no-clustered index on RecordID the execution plan shows 5 steps

Nested Loops Inner Join <- ((Compute Scaler + Index Seek) + RID Lookup)

Clearly I'm going to get better insert performance when inserting into the HEAP, especially when page spits are required on the clustered index.

What I don't know is what the select performance difference would be under load.

e.g. I can expect the RID lookup to be X% slower than the Clustered Index Seek"


The answer I gave was as follows:

DBCC SHRINKFILE, DBCC SHRINKDATABASE, and Auto-shrink… they’re all truly, truly evil and should not be allowed near any system… ever!!!

This is something that I never thought to blog about as I figured it was a common practice. I’ve no idea where I got that idea from as I’d never spoken to anyone about it, just used it within a couple of environments.