|
|
Posted by Tony Sebion on 08/04/05 18:06
Just a guess, but is your primary key a clustered index? The clustered
index represents the actual contents of each row in your database, so it
would make sense that it would be larger than only the indexed fields.
If this is the case, you might want to change that index to not be
clustered and choose a more appropriate field to make a clustered index.
Thanks,
Tony
"sql_server_2000_user" <sethpurcell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1123161597.120447.165590@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Hi,
>
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Seth
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|