Re: Clustered Index Question
From: ChrisR (anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com)
Date: 09/27/04
- Next message: Mike John: "Re: Bulk Copy Question"
- Previous message: Cinderella: "recovering logins"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Next in thread: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Reply: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:24:52 -0700
Would Updates be the same?
>-----Original Message-----
>Actually it should be slightly faster than if it were
just a heap. A heap
>has to do some lookups to determine where to place the
next row that have a
>slight bit of overhead. A CI insert with a
monotonically incrementing value
>is a no brainer per say for SQL Server. As you stated
it goes to the end of
>the last page.
>
>--
>Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
>
>"ChrisR" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message
>news:31d601c4a4d4$5d7139e0$a301280a@phx.gbl...
>> sql2k sp3
>>
>> If my Clustered Index is an Identity Coulmn, should
>> Inserts still be slowed down. In other words, since a
>> newly Inserted row should be stored at the end, why
would
>> it be any slower than when theres no Clustered Index?
It
>> shouldnt need to reorganize anything. Aslo, should
>> Updates be any slower since you cant Update an Identity
>> field anyways?
>>
>> TIA, ChrisR
>
>
>.
>
- Next message: Mike John: "Re: Bulk Copy Question"
- Previous message: Cinderella: "recovering logins"
- In reply to: Andrew J. Kelly: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Next in thread: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Reply: Tibor Karaszi: "Re: Clustered Index Question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|