I have a composite table called TeacherClass with two columns, TeacherID and ClassID. The primary key is both the TeacherID and ClassID. Even though these are also considered foreign keys, should I add an index to each column separately even though they have one on both of them combined from the primary key?
If you have a primary key on (TeacherID, ClassID), you already have an index on those two.
However, a query that uses only ClassID as its parameter won't be able to take advantage of that index - that index only works for (TeacherID) or (TeacherID, ClassID).
So yes - if you ClassID column is used as a foreign key into other tables, I would definitely argue you should put an index on just (ClassID).
An index on just TeacherID however is totally superfluous.
If they are both part of the PK, then most likely are already in a clustered index, but index will have, say (TeacherID, ClassID), not the other way around (ClassID, TeacherID). This means the table will be fast when running something like:
SELECT * FROM TeacherClass WHERE TeacherID = 9
But slow when running
SELECT * FROM TeacherClass WHERE ClassID = 9
If you are planning on running similar select statements, add a new index including ClassID and TeacherID, in that order. You won't need any separate indexes then (having an index that includes Col1 and Col2, makes an index that includes just Col1 redundant).
Related
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 am using SQL Server 2012 & am creating a table that will have 8 columns, types below
datetime
varchar(12)
varchar(6)
varchar(100)
float
float
int
datetime
Once a day (normally) there will be an upload of approx 10,000 rows of data. Going forward its possible it could be 100,000.
The rows will be unique if I group on the first three columns listed above. I have read I can use the unique constraint on multiple columns which will guarantee the rows are unique.
I think I'm correct in saying that the unique constraint by default sets up non-clustered index. Would a clustered index be better & assuming when the table starts to contain millions of rows this won't cause any issues?
My last question. By applying the unique constraint on my table I am right to say querying the data will be quicker than if the unique constraint wasn't applied (because of the non-clustering or clustering) & uploading the data will be slower (which is fine) with the constraint on the table?
Unique index can be non-clustered.
Primary key is unique and can be clustered
Clustered index is not unique by default
Unique clustered index is unique :)
Mor information you can get from this guide.
So, we should separate uniqueness and index keys.
If you need to kepp data unique by some column - create uniqe contraint (unique index). You'll protect your data.
Also, you can create primary key (PK) on your columns - they will be unique also. But, there is a difference: all other indexies will use PK for referencing, so PK must be as short as possible. So, my advice - create Identity column (int or bigint) and create PK on it. And, create unique index on your unique columns.
Querying data may become faster, if you do queries on your unique columns, if you do query on other columns - you need to create other, specific indexies.
So, unique keys - for data consistency, indexies - for queries.
I think I'm correct in saying that the unique constraint by default
sets up non-clustered index
TRUE
Would a clustered index be better & assuming when the table starts to
contain millions of rows this won't cause any issues?
(1)if u need to make (datetime ,varchar(12), varchar(6)) Unique
(2)if you application or you will access rows using datetime or datetime ,varchar(12) or datetime ,varchar(12), varchar(6) in where condition
ALL the time
then have primary key on (datetime ,varchar(12), varchar(6))
by default it will put Uniqness and clustered index on all above three column.
but as you commented above:
the queries will vary to be honest. I imagine most queries will make
use of the first datetime column
and you will deal with huge data and might join this table with other tables
then its better have a surrogate key( ever-increasing unique identifier ) in the table and to satisfy your Selects
have Non-Clustered INDEXES
Surrogate Key vs Business Key
NON-CLUSTERED INDEX
Consider the following:
tbl_Book
BookID PK int identity(1,1)
tbl_Author
AuthorID PK int identity(1,1)
tbl_BookAuthor
BookID FK int
AuthorID FK int
I have a composite/compound primary key on (BookID, AuthorID). More specifically, default values based on SSMS designer:
Columns: (BookID ASC, AuthorID ASC)
Is Unique: Yes
Type: Primary Key
Create As Clustered: Yes
At any point, would I need a non-clustered index on any one of the columns (BookID, AuthorID) or is it not relevant when it's only and will always be only those two columns in the table, as a composite key.
If the only queries that run against this table specify both values of the composite key (or just the first value), then you need no other indexes. The only time I can think you might want another index is if you had queries on just the second column in the compound key (and couldn't make that the first column because you also had queries on just that column as well).
Short answer: things should be fine as-is.
Most likely a search on BookID would be an index seek
A search on AuthorID (without BookID) would be an index scan
If you are never going to search on just the second then it would not matter
It seems like a search on Author only would be more likely so I would switch that order.
How do I switch off the default index on primary keys
I dont want all my tables to be indexed (sorted) but they must have a primary key
You can define a primary key index as NONCLUSTERED to prevent the table rows from being ordered according to the primary key, but you cannot define a primary key without some associated index.
Tables are always unsorted - there is no "default" order for a table and the optimiser may or may not choose to use an index if one exists.
In SQL Server an index is effectively the only way to implement a key. You get a choice between clustered or nonclustered indexes - that is all.
The means by which SQL Server implements Primary and Unique keys is by placing an index on those columns. So you cannot have a Primary Key (or Unique constraint) without an index.
You can tell SQL Server to use a nonclustered index to implement these indexes. If there are only nonclustered indexes on a table (or no indexes at all), you have a heap. It's pretty rare that this is what you actually want.
Just because a table has a clustered index, this in no way indicates that the rows of the table will be returned in the "order" defined by such an index - the fact that the rows are usually returned in that order is an implementation quirk.
And the actual code would be:
CREATE TABLE T (
Column1 char(1) not null,
Column2 char(1) not null,
Column3 char(1) not null,
constraint PK_T PRIMARY KEY NONCLUSTERED (Column2,Column3)
)
What does " I dont want all my tables to be sorted" mean ? If it means that you want the rows to appear in the order where they've been entered, there's only one way to garantee it: have a field that stores that order (or the time if you don't have a lot of transactions). And in that case, you will want to have a clustered index on that field for best performance.
You might end up with a non clustered PK (like the productId) AND a clustered unique index on your autonumber_or_timestamp field for max performance.
But that's really depending on the reality your're trying to model, and your question contains too little information about this. DB design is NOT abstract thinking.
I am listing all FK constraints for a given table using INFORMATION_SCHEMA set of views with the following query:
SELECT X.UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME,
"C".*, "X".*
FROM "INFORMATION_SCHEMA"."KEY_COLUMN_USAGE" AS "C"
INNER JOIN "INFORMATION_SCHEMA"."REFERENTIAL_CONSTRAINTS" AS "X"
ON "C"."CONSTRAINT_NAME" = "X"."CONSTRAINT_NAME"
AND "C"."TABLE_NAME" = 'MY_TABLE'
AND "C"."TABLE_SCHEMA" = 'MY_SCHEMA'
Everything works perfectly well, but for one particular constraint the value of UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME column is wrong, and I need it in order to find additional information from the referenced Column. Basically, for most of the rows the UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME contains the name of the unique constraint (or PK) in the referenced table, but for one particular FK it is the name of some other unique constraint.
I dropped and re-created the FK - did not help.
My assumption is that the meta-data is somehow screwed. Is there a way to rebuild the meta data so that the INFORMATION_SCHEMA views would actually show the correct data?
edit-1: sample db structure
CREATE TABLE MY_PARENT_TABLE (
ID INTEGER,
NAME VARCHAR,
--//...
CONSTRAINT MY_PARENT_TABLE_PK PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (ID)
)
CREATE UNIQUE NONCLUSTERED INDEX MY_PARENT_TABLE_u_nci_ID_LongName ON MY_PARENT_TABLE (ID ASC) INCLUDE (SOME_OTHER_COLUMN)
CREATE TABLE MY_CHILD_TABLE (
ID INTEGER,
PID INTEGER,
NAME VARCHAR,
CONSTRAINT MY_CHILD_TABLE_PK PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED (ID)
,CONSTRAINT MY_CHILD_TABLE__MY_PARENT_TABLE__FK
FOREIGN KEY (PID)
REFERENCES MY_PARENT_TABLE (ID)
ON UPDATE NO ACTION
ON DELETE NO ACTION
)
I expect the UNIQUE_CONSTRAINT_NAME to be MY_PARENT_TABLE_PK, but what I am
getting is MY_PARENT_TABLE_u_nci_ID_LongName.
Having looked at the structure, I see that in fact there are 2 UNIQUE constaints on that column - PK and the MY_PARENT_TABLE_u_nci_ID_LongName. So the real question should probably be: why does it take some other unique index and not the PK?
Since you have both a PK and a UNIQUE constraint on the same column, SQL Server picks one to use. I don't know if it picks the UNIQUE constraint because it is thinner (i.e. fewer columns involved) and might require fewer reads to confirm matches(?)
I don't see any way within SQL to enforce which one it chooses, other than ordering your scripts - create the table with the PK, create the other table and the FK, then create the UNIQUE constraint if you really need it - but is that really the case?