|
|
Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 08/04/05 18:07
sql_server_2000_user (sethpurcell@comcast.net) writes:
> I have a table with about 305 million rows, and a composite primary key
> that consists of an ascending int and an ascending varchar(18), which
> is typically of length 13. Even if all the keys used the full 18
> characters of the varchar, it seems to me each key should be 22 bytes,
> so the index should be roughly 6.4GB. However, the size of the index as
> shown in EM is about 24GB, and this is slowing everything down
> considerably. Does anyone else think this index size is a little
> excessive, or know why it should be so large?
Is that a clustered index or a non-clustered iodex?
A clustered index has the data pages in the leafs of the index node, so
size of index is basically size of data.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|