I have a table which has over 25 millions rows. The table gets bigger every day (roughly 35 000 rows). I created nonclustered index on 2 columns - date and debt_id (these columns are used most frequently in WHERE clouse), each debt_id occurs only once in each date). So the table is still the heap because it doesn't have a clustered index. Do you think that it would be a good idea to add identity column (1,1) and create clustered index on it? Or what do you think I should do to boost performance on this table?
If your two columns are unique in any case, you can use them as clustered index.
Most important: A clustered index should not change its values, and new rows should be appended in the correct order.
The time of insertion as DATETIME2 as the first column of your clustered index is a good bet here.
The uniqueness must be guaranteed by the combination of this value and the debt_id you've mentioned.
Assuming that neither the time of insertion nor the debt_id are changing data, this looks like a very good combined PK.
Otherwise your clustered index might get fragmented. This would make things even worse... (The main reason why UNIQUEIDENTIFIER IDs tend to be very bad as clustered PK. Regularly running index repair scripts can be an acceptable workaround.)
A non-fragmented clustered index will speed up things, as long as your query filters on both columns (at least the first one must be involved).
You can add more indexes, you might even INCLUDE heavily needed values to them.
Other indexes will use the clustered index as lookup (might need recreation after building the clustered one). This helps if the clustered index is well performing and can make things worse if not.
So I'd say: If the above is true in your case, an additional ID IDENTITY is of little help. This will add one more step to each query, as the Query will need an additional lookup. But, if the index is prone to fragmentation, I'd rather add the additional ID. And finally, to cite George Menoutis in comments
Well, I certainly can't answer this; it is a deep design choice with
loads of pros, loads of cons, and loads of discussion
Without knowing your database and your needs this is pure guessing...
Related
I have a database where all tables include a Site column (char(4)) and a PrimaryId column (int).
Currently the clustered index on all tables is the combination of these two columns. Many customers only have one site so in those cases I think it definitely makes sense to change the clustered index to only include the PrimaryId.
In cases where there are multiple sites though, I'm wondering whether it would still be advantageous to only use the PrimaryId as the clustered index? Might having a smaller clustered index produce better performance than having a unique one?
In case it's relevant, there are generally not going to be more than a few sites. 10 sites would be a lot.
The answer is simple UNIQUE index is always better then NON-UNIQUE. There is some maths behind it but the greater uniqueness is the faster server can look up a record from index.
CLUSTERED index is great as they physically order the records on disk and it always a good idea to use CLUSTERED INDEX on UNIQUE keys.
CLUSTER INDEX with PRIMARY KEY give very good performance with large data. If your data is not high in column then it will not matter much.
I have recently read a article about how nonclustered indexes are matching table rows. I will try to summarize what I believe is relevant to your question.
There are two types of tables (in the context of indexes):
heap - a table without clustered index
clustered index - a table with clustered index
In the first case a nonclustered index is matching rows using RIP-Based bookmarks which has the following format:
file number - page number - row number
and a nonclustered index is looking like this:
You can see the RIP bookmark is in red.
Generally speaking, the rows of a heap do not move; once they have
been inserted into a page they remain on that page. To be more
technically-precise: rows in a heap seldom move, and when they do
move, they leave a forwarding address at the old location. The rows of
a clustered index, however, can move; that is, they can be relocated
to another page during data modification or index reorganization.
In the second the nonclustered index is using the index key of the clustered index as a bookmark and the clustered index itself should meet several criteria:
it must be unique
it should be short
it should be static
I am going to describe the first criteria (the others are described in the link below):
Each index entry bookmark must allow SQL Server to find the one row in
the table that corresponds to that entry. If you create a clustered
index that is not unique, SQL Server will make the clustered index
unique by generating an additional value that "breaks the tie" for
duplicate keys. This extra value is generated by SQL Server to create
uniqueness is called the uniquifier and is transparent to any client
application. You should carefully consider whether or not to allow
duplicates in a clustered index, for the following reasons:
Generating uniquifiers is extra overhead. SQL Server must decide, at
insert time, if a new row's key is a duplicate of an existing row's
key; and, if so, generate a uniquifier values to add to the new row
The uniquifier is a meaningless piece of information; a meaningless
piece of information that is being propagated into the table's
nonclustered indexes. It's usually better to propagate a meaningful
piece of information into the nonclustered indexes.
The whole article can be found here.
Recently I found a couple of tables in a Database with no Clustered Indexes defined.
But there are non-clustered indexes defined, so they are on HEAP.
On analysis I found that select statements were using filter on the columns defined in non-clustered indexes.
Not having a clustered index on these tables affect performance?
It's hard to state this more succinctly than SQL Server MVP Brad McGehee:
As a rule of thumb, every table should have a clustered index. Generally, but not always, the clustered index should be on a column that monotonically increases–such as an identity column, or some other column where the value is increasing–and is unique. In many cases, the primary key is the ideal column for a clustered index.
BOL echoes this sentiment:
With few exceptions, every table should have a clustered index.
The reasons for doing this are many and are primarily based upon the fact that a clustered index physically orders your data in storage.
If your clustered index is on a single column monotonically increases, inserts occur in order on your storage device and page splits will not happen.
Clustered indexes are efficient for finding a specific row when the indexed value is unique, such as the common pattern of selecting a row based upon the primary key.
A clustered index often allows for efficient queries on columns that are often searched for ranges of values (between, >, etc.).
Clustering can speed up queries where data is commonly sorted by a specific column or columns.
A clustered index can be rebuilt or reorganized on demand to control table fragmentation.
These benefits can even be applied to views.
You may not want to have a clustered index on:
Columns that have frequent data changes, as SQL Server must then physically re-order the data in storage.
Columns that are already covered by other indexes.
Wide keys, as the clustered index is also used in non-clustered index lookups.
GUID columns, which are larger than identities and also effectively random values (not likely to be sorted upon), though newsequentialid() could be used to help mitigate physical reordering during inserts.
A rare reason to use a heap (table without a clustered index) is if the data is always accessed through nonclustered indexes and the RID (SQL Server internal row identifier) is known to be smaller than a clustered index key.
Because of these and other considerations, such as your particular application workloads, you should carefully select your clustered indexes to get maximum benefit for your queries.
Also note that when you create a primary key on a table in SQL Server, it will by default create a unique clustered index (if it doesn't already have one). This means that if you find a table that doesn't have a clustered index, but does have a primary key (as all tables should), a developer had previously made the decision to create it that way. You may want to have a compelling reason to change that (of which there are many, as we've seen). Adding, changing or dropping the clustered index requires rewriting the entire table and any non-clustered indexes, so this can take some time on a large table.
I would not say "Every table should have a clustered index", I would say "Look carefully at every table and how they are accessed and try to define a clustered index on it if it makes sense". It's a plus, like a Joker, you have only one Joker per table, but you don't have to use it. Other database systems don't have this, at least in this form, BTW.
Putting clustered indices everywhere without understanding what you're doing can also kill your performance (in general, the INSERT performance because a clustered index means physical re-ordering on the disk, or at least it's a good way to understand it), for example with GUID primary keys as we see more and more.
So, read Tim Lehner's exceptions and reason.
Performance is a big hairy problem. Make sure you are optimizing for the right thing.
Free advice is always worth it's price, and there is no substitute for actual experimentation.
The purpose of an index is to find matching rows and help retrieve the data when found.
A non-clustered index on your search criteria will help to find rows, but there needs to be additional operation to get at the row's data.
If there is no clustered index, SQL uses an internal rowId to point to the location of the data.
However, If there is a clustered index on the table, that rowId is replaced by the data values in the clustered index.
So the step of reading the rows data would not be needed, and would be covered by the values in the index.
Even if a clustered index isn't very good at being selective, if those keys are frequently most or all of the results requested - it may be helpful to have them as the leaf of the non-clustered index.
Yes you should have clustered index on a table.So that all nonclustered indexes perform in better way.
Consider using a clustered index when Columns that contain a large number of distinct values so to avoid the need for SQL Server to add a "uniqueifier" to duplicate key values
Disadvantage : It takes longer to update records if only when the fields in the clustering index are changed.
Avoid clustering index constructions where there is a risk that many concurrent inserts will happen on almost the same clustering index value
Searches against a nonclustered index will appear slower is the clustered index isn't build correctly, or it does not include all the columns needed to return the data back to the calling application. In the event that the non-clustered index doesn't contain all the needed data then the SQL Server will go to the clustered index to get the missing data (via a lookup) which will make the query run slower as the lookup is done row by row.
Yes, every table should have a clustered index. The clustered index sets the physical order of data in a table. You can compare this to the ordering of music at a store, by bands name and or Yellow pages ordered by a last name. Since this deals with the physical order you can have only one it can be comprised by many columns but you can only have one.
It’s best to place the clustered index on columns often searched for a range of values. Example would be a date range. Clustered indexes are also efficient for finding a specific row when the indexed value is unique. Microsoft SQL will place clustered indexes on a PRIMARY KEY constraint automatically if no clustered indexes are defined.
Clustered indexes are not a good choice for:
Columns that undergo frequent changes
This results in the entire row moving (because SQL Server must keep
the data values of a row in physical order). This is an important
consideration in high-volume transaction processing systems where
data tends to be volatile.
Wide keys
The key values from the clustered index are used by all
nonclustered indexes as lookup keys and therefore are stored in each
nonclustered index leaf entry.
This question already has answers here:
What are the differences between a clustered and a non-clustered index?
(13 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
I need to add proper index to my tables and need some help.
I'm confused and need to clarify a few points:
Should I use index for non-int columns? Why/why not
I've read a lot about clustered and non-clustered index yet I still can't decide when to use one over the other. A good example would help me and a lot of other developers.
I know that I shouldn't use indexes for columns or tables that are often updated. What else should I be careful about and how can I know that it is all good before going to test phase?
A clustered index alters the way that the rows are stored. When you create a clustered index on a column (or a number of columns), SQL server sorts the table’s rows by that column(s). It is like a dictionary, where all words are sorted in alphabetical order in the entire book.
A non-clustered index, on the other hand, does not alter the way the rows are stored in the table. It creates a completely different object within the table that contains the column(s) selected for indexing and a pointer back to the table’s rows containing the data. It is like an index in the last pages of a book, where keywords are sorted and contain the page number to the material of the book for faster reference.
You really need to keep two issues apart:
1) the primary key is a logical construct - one of the candidate keys that uniquely and reliably identifies every row in your table. This can be anything, really - an INT, a GUID, a string - pick what makes most sense for your scenario.
2) the clustering key (the column or columns that define the "clustered index" on the table) - this is a physical storage-related thing, and here, a small, stable, ever-increasing data type is your best pick - INT or BIGINT as your default option.
By default, the primary key on a SQL Server table is also used as the clustering key - but that doesn't need to be that way!
One rule of thumb I would apply is this: any "regular" table (one that you use to store data in, that is a lookup table etc.) should have a clustering key. There's really no point not to have a clustering key. Actually, contrary to common believe, having a clustering key actually speeds up all the common operations - even inserts and deletes (since the table organization is different and usually better than with a heap - a table without a clustering key).
Kimberly Tripp, the Queen of Indexing has a great many excellent articles on the topic of why to have a clustering key, and what kind of columns to best use as your clustering key. Since you only get one per table, it's of utmost importance to pick the right clustering key - and not just any clustering key.
GUIDs as PRIMARY KEY and/or clustered key
The clustered index debate continues
Ever-increasing clustering key - the Clustered Index Debate..........again!
Disk space is cheap - that's not the point!
Marc
You should be using indexes to help SQL server performance. Usually that implies that columns that are used to find rows in a table are indexed.
Clustered indexes makes SQL server order the rows on disk according to the index order. This implies that if you access data in the order of a clustered index, then the data will be present on disk in the correct order. However if the column(s) that have a clustered index is frequently changed, then the row(s) will move around on disk, causing overhead - which generally is not a good idea.
Having many indexes is not good either. They cost to maintain. So start out with the obvious ones, and then profile to see which ones you miss and would benefit from. You do not need them from start, they can be added later on.
Most column datatypes can be used when indexing, but it is better to have small columns indexed than large. Also it is common to create indexes on groups of columns (e.g. country + city + street).
Also you will not notice performance issues until you have quite a bit of data in your tables. And another thing to think about is that SQL server needs statistics to do its query optimizations the right way, so make sure that you do generate that.
A comparison of a non-clustered index with a clustered index with an example
As an example of a non-clustered index, let’s say that we have a non-clustered index on the EmployeeID column. A non-clustered index will store both the value of the
EmployeeID
AND a pointer to the row in the Employee table where that value is actually stored. But a clustered index, on the other hand, will actually store the row data for a particular EmployeeID – so if you are running a query that looks for an EmployeeID of 15, the data from other columns in the table like
EmployeeName, EmployeeAddress, etc
. will all actually be stored in the leaf node of the clustered index itself.
This means that with a non-clustered index extra work is required to follow that pointer to the row in the table to retrieve any other desired values, as opposed to a clustered index which can just access the row directly since it is being stored in the same order as the clustered index itself. So, reading from a clustered index is generally faster than reading from a non-clustered index.
In general, use an index on a column that's going to be used (a lot) to search the table, such as a primary key (which by default has a clustered index). For example, if you have the query (in pseudocode)
SELECT * FROM FOO WHERE FOO.BAR = 2
You might want to put an index on FOO.BAR. A clustered index should be used on a column that will be used for sorting. A clustered index is used to sort the rows on disk, so you can only have one per table. For example if you have the query
SELECT * FROM FOO ORDER BY FOO.BAR ASCENDING
You might want to consider a clustered index on FOO.BAR.
Probably the most important consideration is how much time your queries are taking. If a query doesn't take much time or isn't used very often, it may not be worth adding indexes. As always, profile first, then optimize. SQL Server Studio can give you suggestions on where to optimize, and MSDN has some information1 that you might find useful
faster to read than non cluster as data is physically storted in index order
we can create only one per table.(cluster index)
quicker for insert and update operation than a cluster index.
we can create n number of non cluster index.
I'm not a DBA ("Good!", you'll be thinking in a moment.)
I have a table of logging data with these characteristics and usage patterns:
A datetime column for storing log timestamps whose value is ever-increasing and mostly (but only mostly) unique
Frequent-ish inserts (say, a dozen a minute), only at the end of the timestamp range (new data being logged)
Infrequent deletes, in bulk, from the beginning of the timestamp range (old data being cleared)
No updates at all
Frequent-ish selects using the timestamp column as the primary criterion, along with secondary criteria on other columns
Infrequent selects using other columns as the criteria (and not including the timestamp column)
A good amount of data, but nowhere near enough that I'm worried much about storage space
Additionally, there is currently a daily maintenance window during which I could do table optimization.
I frankly don't expect this table to challenge the server it's going to be on even if I mis-index it a bit, but nevertheless it seemed like a good opportunity to ask for some input on SQL Server clustered indexes.
I know that clustered indexes determine the storage of the actual table data (the data is stored in the leaf nodes of the index itself), and that non-clustered indexes are separate pointers into the data. So in query terms, a clustered index is going to be faster than a non-clustered index -- once we've found the index value, the data is right there. There are costs on insert and delete (and of course an update changing the clustered index column's value would be particularly costly).
But I read in this answer that deletes leave gaps that don't get cleaned up until/unless the index is rebuilt.
All of this suggests to me that I should:
Put a clustered index on the timestamp column with a 100% fill-factor
Put non-clustered indexes on any other column that may be used as a criterion in a query that doesn't also involve the clustered column (which may be any of them in my case)
Schedule the bulk deletes to occur during the daily maintenance interval
Schedule a rebuild of the clustered index to occur immediately after the bulk delete
Relax and get out more
Am I wildly off base there? Do I need to frequently rebuild the index like that to avoid lots of wasted space? Are there other obvious (to a DBA) things I should be doing?
Thanks in advance.
Contrary to what a lot of people believe, having a good clustered index on a table can actually make operations like INSERTs faster - yes, faster!
Check out the seminal blog post The Clustered Index Debate Continues.... by Kimberly Tripp - the ultimate indexing queen.
She mentions (about in the middle of the article):
Inserts are faster in a clustered
table (but only in the "right"
clustered table) than compared to a
heap. The primary problem here is that
lookups in the IAM/PFS to determine
the insert location in a heap are
slower than in a clustered table
(where insert location is known,
defined by the clustered key). Inserts
are faster when inserted into a table
where order is defined (CL) and where
that order is ever-increasing.
The crucial point is: only with the right clustered index will you be able to reap the benefits - when a clustered index is unique, narrow, stable and optimally ever-increasing. This is best served with an INT IDENTITY column.
Kimberly Tripp also has a great article on how to pick the best possible clustering key for your tables, and what criteria it should fulfil - see her post entitled Ever-increasing clustering key - the Clustered Index Debate..........again!
If you have such a column - e.g. a surrogate primary key - use that for your clustering key and you should see very nice performance on your table - even on lots of INSERTs.
I agree with putting the clustered index on the timestamp column. My query would be on the fillfactor - 100% gives best read performance at the expense of write performance. you may be hurt by page splits. Choosing a lower fillfactor will delay page splitting at the expense of read performance so its a fine balancing act to get the best for your situation.
After the bulk deletes its worth rebuilding the indexes and updating statistics. This not only keeps performance up but also resets the indexes to the specified fillfactor.
Finally, yes put nonclustered indexes on other appropriate columns but only ones that are very select e.g not bit fields. But remember the more indexes, the more this affects write performance
There's two "best practice" ways to index a high traffic logging table:
an integer identity column as a primary clustered key
a uniqueidentifier colum as primary key, with DEFAULT NEWSEQUENTIALID()
Both methods allow SQL Server to grow the table efficiently, because it knows that the index tree will grow in a particular direction.
I would not put any other indexes on the table, or schedule rebuilds of the index, unless there is a specific performance issue.
The obvious answer is it depends on how you will query it. The point of the index is to lessen the quantity of compares when selecting data. The clustered index helps when you consider what data you will load together and the blocking factor of the storage (you can load a bunch of data in a 64k block with one read). If you include an ID and a datetime as the primary key, but not use them in your selection criteria, they will do nothing but hinder your performance. This is why people usually drop indexes upon bulk inserts before loading data.
I have a few tables with 4 to 10 rows. We don't anticipate that these tables will ever grow much more that a few more rows.
Does it make sense to put an index on their primary keys.
If they have primary keys as you stated then you already have at least one index. This probably is a clustered index, and I thing you are good to go.
The correct answer is: IT DOESN'T MATTER.
Any time the table is small enough to fit inside a single 8k data page, SQL server can simply load that one page, and have the "entire table" available to do whatever it needs.
A clustered index is the table itself, so if you add a clustered index, you're not really adding any overhead, you're just specifying a sort preference within the single data page where the table resides.
A nonclustered index, on the other hand, is a separate object, so it would just be wasted space, because it would never be used. (The query optimizer is never going to load an index that only has pointers to a single data page. It'll just load the only data page directly).
By all means make sure you have a primary key, but if you also add the clustered index, it isn't going to mean much (and likely wouldn't ever be used) unless the table grows well beyond one page.
You should almost always have a clustered index in the very least. I would say yes, go ahead and index them.
It certainly won't hurt, and should the data in that table grow past your expectations, you will at least have a simple indexing strategy in place to help mitigate the effect of the increased table size.
If your using a Primary Key then you will already have one clustered index.
Hopefully you have a primary key which is your Clustered index. But other than column(s) in your index, a 4 to 10 row table is tiny - there is more cost associated with looking up an index than an actual table scan.
Someone please keep me honest here - for SQL 2008 in large scale production and reporting environments, we do not bother with indices on tables with less than 50k rows.
I’m with Tapori on this; adding indexes will unnecessarily add overhead.