|
|
Posted by Zamdrist on 03/23/07 18:23
On Mar 23, 12:20 pm, "Brad" <Brad.Marsh...@Teksouth.com> wrote:
> On Mar 23, 12:08 pm, "Zamdrist" <zamdr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I am tasked with maintaining a large database still on SQL Server 7.0.
> > Performance is an issue not surprisingly and I've targeted two rather
> > large tables to see what I can do with the indexes.
>
> > The 2 tables are described as follows:
>
> > MatterConflicts:
> > Fields: MatterConflicts varchar(16), Matters varchar(16), HitMatters
> > varchar(16), IsInclude varchar(1)
> > Index: MatterConflicts
>
> > MatterConflictHits:
> > Fields: MatterConflictHits varchar(16), MatterConflicts varchar(16),
> > ColumnLabel varchar(40), Hit varchar(100)
> > Index: MatterConflictHits
>
> > Now MatterConflicts row count is approaching 500K and
> > MatterConflictHits is approaching 1 Million rows. There are only one
> > index on each table, each for the table's primary key. The Matters
> > field in MatterConflicts table joins back with a table that users
> > access directly.
>
> > Question is, would it be beneficial to add, or modify the existing
> > indexes for these tables to include both the primary and foreign keys,
> > as well as an additional field?
>
> > Doesn't seem to be to be very beneficial to have an index that only
> > includes the primary key. So for example I'm thinking of creating an
> > index for MatterConflicts that includes the fields: MatterConflicts,
> > Matters, and HitMatters.
>
> > Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks...
>
> Is this a reporting and analytical system or a transactional system?
Transactional
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|