Posted by Tibor Karaszi on 10/21/77 11:43

>>> Why? IMO, clustered indexes are a bad idea for most tables.
>> Arguments? Or is it just an opinion?
>>
> take a look over Kimberly's paper about that.
> You will see that CLUSTERED index is good for :
> - monotonically growing index value
> - monocolumn index
> - no update to vartype data

That doesn't say that you shouldn't have clustered clustered indexes for the tables.

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/


"SQLpro [MVP]" <brouardf@club-internet.fr> wrote in message
news:%23C0JDpZUGHA.1636@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Erland Sommarskog a �crit :
>> Doug (drmiller100@hotmail.com) writes:
>>> hmmm.
>>> "always have a clustered index"?????
>>>
>>> Why? IMO, clustered indexes are a bad idea for most tables.
>>
>> Arguments? Or is it just an opinion?
>>
> take a look over Kimberly's paper about that.
> You will see that CLUSTERED index is good for :
> - monotonically growing index value
> - monocolumn index
> - no update to vartype data
>
> A +
>
>
> --
> Fr�d�ric BROUARD, MVP SQL Server, expert bases de donn�es et langage SQL
> Le site sur le langage SQL et les SGBDR : http://sqlpro.developpez.com
> Audit, conseil, expertise, formation, mod�lisation, tuning, optimisation
> ********************* http://www.datasapiens.com ***********************

• Next in forum: Re: Accessing Oracle Tables From Within SQL Server 2000
• Prev in forum: Re: slow insert, logical fragmentation
• Thread view: Re: slow insert, logical fragmentation

[Reply to this message]