Posted by Erland Sommarskog on 10/26/05 00:42

(gilles27@talk21.com) writes:
> Our review of the primary keys was triggered by one of our customers
> complaining about the performance of the database. They claimed to have
> "re-sequenced the primary key which reduced Index reads by a factor of
> 5". Do you have any idea as to how they arrived at this conclusion?

Sounds like hogwash to me. But if you are an evil man, please ask them
for a repro that demonstrates this. (For the sake of customer
relations, you might prefer to avoid it though. :-)

Gert-Jan's theory about fragmentation being fixed by reindexing sounds
plausible to me.

--
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

• Next in forum: Re: User Defined Functions, passing parameters from another udf's results (end result=Crosstab)
• Prev in forum: Re: Deriving unique rows from historical data
• Thread view: Re: Sequence of columns in primary key

[Reply to this message]