Could someone simplify the explanation of adding a UNIQUE CONSTRAINT to a column please.
When creating the key index does SQL SERVER copy ALL of the information in the row and add it to the index or just the data in the column with the applied UNIQUE CONSTRAINT?
I hope I explained that properly.
Any help will be greatly appreciated.
Lee.
EDIT**
Ok i think i get it?
CREATE TABLE dbo.test
(
Id int NOT NULL,
Name char(10) NOT NULL UNIQUE
);
INSERT INTO dbo.test (id, name) VALUES (1, 'Lee')
INSERT INTO dbo.test (id, name) VALUES (2, 'Paul')
INSERT INTO dbo.test (id, name) VALUES (3, 'Adam')
INSERT INTO dbo.test (id, name) VALUES (4, 'Henry')
In a clustered index the whole table would be sorted like
3, Adam
4, Henry
1, Lee
2, Paul
So with each additional INSERT the server would have to re-sort the entire table based on the name column?
In a nonclustered index there is another "table" that stores the sort?
When creating the key index does SQL SERVER copy ALL of the
information in the row and add it to the index or just the data in the
column with the applied UNIQUE CONSTRAINT?
There is no such a term as "key index".
Indexes can be clustered or non-clustered.
When you declare UNIQUE CONSTRAINT it's logical entity, but it's physically supported by unique index creation
When you create your unique constraint declaring it as clustered, clustered index will be created. If you don't mention clustered in your constraint definition or use explicite nonclustered, non-clustered index will be created.
Non-clustered index is a separate data structure where every row contains key columns.
On the other hand, clustered index (or better call it clustered table) is data itself + searching B-tree above it. In this case no separate structure is created, it's table itself that now is organized not as a heap but as ordered index.
UNIQUE CONSTRAINT will work just as UNIQUE INDEX. There are 2 ways:
With a clustered index the rows are stored physically on the disk in the same order as the index. (hence, only one clustered index is possible)
With a non clustered index there is a second list that has pointers to the physical rows. You can have many non clustered indexes, although each new index will increase the time it takes to write new records.
If you have both clustered and non clustered index, then non clustered index will point to the clustered index column.
THIS 'SO' answer will help you understand it a bit clear.
By default the unique constraint and Unique index will create a non
clustered index if you don't specify any different (and the PK will by
default be created as CLUSTERED if no conflicting clustered index
exists) but you can explicitly specify CLUSTERED/NONCLUSTERED for any
of them.
Related
I have a table in SQL Server containing some user related info where the primary key is id (auto increment by 1) and has a column named userId. Each user can only has one record in the table, so I have added a unique constraint on column userId. As per SQL Server docs, SQL Server will automatically create an index for the unique constraint column.
For the usage on the table, there can be many update and insert operations, as well as select operations, and that's where my questions arise.
I see that the index that got created automatically by SQL Server on the unique constraint column is a non-clustered index, where it is good for update and insert operations, but for select operation, it is not as fast as the clustered index. (ref. differences-between-a-clustered-and-a-non-clustered-index)
For this table, there can be many select by userId operations. From the performance perspective, should a clustered index on userId be created, given that clustered index is the fastest for read operations ?
If yes, but a non-clustered index has already been automatically created on column userId, could a clustered index still be created on the userId column? (I have found some similar question, from the answers, it seem like if doing so, it will first search through the non-clustered index, then it will points to the clustered index and continue that search non-clustered-index-and-clustered-index-on-the-same-column)
Assuming your table was created in the following manner:
CREATE TABLE dbo.users
(
id int identity(1,1),
userId int,
userName varchar(100),
emailAddress varchar(100),
constraint PK_dbo_users primary key (Id)
);
alter table dbo.users
add constraint UNQ_dbo_users_userId UNIQUE(userId);
... then you already have a clustered index on "id" column by default.
A table can only have one clustered index, as Jonathon Willcock mentioned in the comments. So you cannot add another clustered index to userId column.
You also cannot recreate the clustered index to switch it to the userId column, as the constraints must much the existing constraint. Also, assuming there are foreign key references involved from other tables, you would have to drop the foreign keys before you can drop the users table.
Another option is to create a nonclustered covering index with an INCLUDE clause that contains all the columns needed for your query. This will avoid key lookups in the query plan.
For example:
create nonclustered index IX_dbo_users
on dbo.users (userId) include (id, userName, emailAddress);
Whether the PK and/or clustered index should be on userId or Id column depends on your users queries. If more queries, or more important queries, rely on "id" having clustered index, then keep it. Etc.
But if your table does not already have a clustered index, then yes, add it on userId column.
I have a Table to make a Clustered Primary Key.
CREATE TABLE dbo.SampleTable
(
C1 INT NOT NULL,
C2 INT NOT NULL )
First Way is making Primary Key index with Clustered index.
ALTER TABLE dbo.SampleTable ADD CONSTRAINT IDX_SampleTable PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (C1, C2)
Second Way is CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX after ADD CONSTRAINT PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED about same columns.
ALTER TABLE dbo.SampleTable ADD CONSTRAINT IDX_SampleTable PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (C1, C2)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IDX_SampleTable2 ON dbo.SampleTable (C1 ,C2) -- Can not create Same Name With above Constraint Name
Is there a difference in performance from the above two methods?
Is there a way do not recommend using it?
Yes, there is a difference. By specifying CLUSTERED, you instruct the database to store the data in a certain way. Basically, it enforces that subsequent indexes are stored on subsequent data blocks on the hard drive.
By creating a clustered primary key as in your first statement, all the data in the table will always have unique values in C1, C2 and the data is always stored in subsequent data blocks.
In the second example, you do NOT enforce this CLUSTERED behaviour through the primary key, but through a separate index. Though the effects are the same now, you might choose to remove (or temporarily disable) the index and then the data would no longer be guaranteed to get stored in a CLUSTERED fashion.
Bottom line: In practice these two statements are the same now, but might make a difference in the future because the CLUSTERED property is not integrated in the PK, but in a separate index.
Creating a Nonclustered Primary Key and then creating a Clustered index on the columns within the Primary key is not a good idea. Effectively you'll create 2 indexes on the columns (C1 and C2 in this case), however, it's very unlikely the nonclustered index will ever be used. This is because the Clustered Index is very likely going to be the first choice for the RDBMS, as the pages will be in the order of the Clustered Index. Also, when using a non-clustered index the data engine will still need to refer to the Clustered Index afterwards, to find out the exact location of the row (in the pages).
If you do want a clustered index on your Primary Key(s) then create the key as a Clustered Primary Key. This is not to say that your Primary Key should always be Clustered, but that is a very different subject.
This depends from your datas:
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/sql/relational-databases/indexes/clustered-and-nonclustered-indexes-described?view=sql-server-2017
Clustered indexes sort and store the data rows in the table or view
based on their key values. These are the columns included in the index
definition. There can be only one clustered index per table, because
the data rows themselves can be stored in only one order.
So the clustered key influence the format of your physical data structure.
I thought we could only place one clustered index on one table, and put multiple non-clustered indexes on a table, but using the code below I can easily add more than one clustered index to my table.
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX TBL_MULTI_LC_HIST ON dbo.TBL_MULTI_LC_HIST (ID,AsOfDate)
Is this completely wrong?
It isn't possible to create multiple clustered indexes for a single table. From the docs (emphasis mine):
Clustered indexes sort and store the data rows in the table or view based on their key values. These are the columns included in the index definition. There can be only one clustered index per table, because the data rows themselves can be stored in only one order.
For example this will fail:
CREATE TABLE Thing
(
Column1 INT NOT NULL,
Column2 INT NOT NULL
)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX1 ON dbo.Thing(Column1)
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX2 ON dbo.Thing(Column2)
Error:
Cannot create more than one clustered index on table 'dbo.Thing'. Drop the existing clustered index 'IX1' before creating another.
Example: http://www.sqlfiddle.com/#!18/53a63/1
You can however have a single index with multiple columns in it which is perhaps where you are getting confused:
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX IX3 ON dbo.Thing(Column1, Column2)
You can only have one clustered index. A "Clustered" index IS the row... it contains all the columns. Every other index would just contain a pointer to the clustered row. The key of the clustered index enforces an 'ordering' on the rows by default.
If there is no clustered index, then the rows are basically stored in a heap, with no order or structure.
Given the database table:
UserID (PK)
SomeTypeID (PK)
SomeSubTypeID (PK)
Data
And you wish to query:
SELECT Data FROM Table WHERE UserID = {0} AND SomeTypeID = {1} AND SomeSubTypeID = {2}
Would you need to create the index UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubTypeID or does the fact they form the primary key mean this is not needed?
If you created your primary key as:
CREATE TABLE TBL (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType, Data
CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType))
Then the default index that is being created is a CLUSTERED index.
Usually (so not all times), when looking for data, you would want your queries to use a NON-CLUSTERED index to filter rows, where the columns you use to filter rows will form the key of the index and the information (column) that you return from those rows as an INCLUDED column, in this case DATA, like below:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX ncl_indx
ON TBL (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType) INCLUDE (Data);
By doing this, you're avoiding accessing the table data, through the CLUSTERED index.
But, you can specify the type of index that you want your PRIMARY KEY to be, so:
CREATE TABLE TBL (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType, Data
CONSTRAINT PK PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType));
Buuut, because you want this to be defined as a PRIMARY KEY then you are not able to use the INCLUDE functionality, so you can't avoid the disk lookup in order to get the information from the DATA column, which is where you basically are with having the default CLUSTERED index.
Buuuuuut, there's still a way to ensure the uniqueness that the Primary Key gives you and benefit from the INCLUDE functionality, so as to do as fewer disk I/O's.
You can specify your NONCLUSTERED INDEX as UNIQUE which will ensure that all of your 3 columns that make up the index key are unique.
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX ncl_indx
ON TBL (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType) INCLUDE (Data);
By doing all of these then your table is going to be a HEAP, which is not a very good thing. If you've given it a good thought in designing your tables and decided that the best clustering key for your CLUSTERED INDEX is (UserID, SomeTypeID, SomeSubType), then it's best to leave everything as you currently have it.
Otherwise, if you have decided on a different clustering key then you can add this unique nonclustered index, if you're going to query the table as you said you will.
AS long as you use all the columns used in your primary key when filtering you don't need to create seperate indexes. Your primary key is ok in your example.
Think of creating seperate index if you plan to filter on one of the columns and not the others. For example: SELECT Data FROM Table WHERE UserID = {0}
I have created the below table with primary key:
create table test2
(id int primary key,name varchar(20))
insert into test2 values
(1,'mahesh'),(2,'ram'),(3,'sham')
then created the non clustered index on it.
create nonclustered index ind_non_name on test2(name)
when I write below query it will always you non clustered indexes in query execution plan.
select COUNT(*) from test2
select id from test2
select * from test2
Could you please help me to understand why it always use non clustered index even if we have clustered index on table?
Thanks in advance.
Basically when you create a non-clustered index on name, the index actually contains name and id, so it kind of contains all the table itself.
If you add another field like this:
create table test4
(id int primary key clustered,name varchar(20), name2 varchar(20))
insert into test4 values
(1,'mahesh','mahesh'),(2,'ram','mahesh'),(3,'sham','mahesh')
create nonclustered index ind_non_name on test4(name)
You'll see that some of the queries will start using the clustered index.
In your case the indexes are pretty much the same thing, since clustered index also contains the data, your clustered index is id, name and non clustered indexes contain the clustering key, so the non-clustered index is name, id.
You don't have any search criteria, so no matter which index is used, it must be scanned completely anyhow, so why should it actually use the clustered index?
If you add third field you your table, then at least select * will use clustered index.
You are confusing Primary Keys with clustering keys. They are not the same. You will need to explicitly create the clustering key.
To create the clustering key on the primary key in the create statement:
create table test2
(id int ,name varchar(20)
constraint PK_ID_test2 primary key clustered(id))
To add the clustering key to what you have already:
ALTER TABLE test2
ADD CONSTRAINT PK_ID_test2 primary key clustered(id)