November 21, 2003 at 5:51 am
This answer implies that you would be moving the primary key constraint to the LAST_ORDER_DT also.
This is not possible and the LAST_ORDER_DT would not be unique.
I want my points back!!
[Sorry clicked the wrong link and created a new thread should have been under QOD 11/21]
Edited by - bustell on 11/21/2003 05:53:17 AM
Pat Buskey
November 21, 2003 at 6:19 am
You bet your sweet #%$ their answer is incorrect. Its just plain wrong, no doubt about it.
November 21, 2003 at 6:58 am
Iagree, the wording is plain wrong...
November 21, 2003 at 7:00 am
hm...maybe we should agree to post only to one single thread?
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
November 21, 2003 at 7:14 am
What was left unsaid was how often you will need to run this query.
As in real life, one query doesn't exist by itself. If you only run this report once a quarter, and most of queries are ordered by and against the primary key the most popular solution would be the most effective.
The non-clustered index would cause the least damage to other queries against this table. First do no harm.
Edited by - rawheiser on 11/21/2003 07:15:04 AM
Edited by - rawheiser on 11/21/2003 07:16:06 AM
November 21, 2003 at 7:19 am
I think I have read in the question, that it runs every second
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
November 21, 2003 at 7:55 am
Opps, I'm Sorry, you are correct. I didn't read that.
But looking at the other postings (spread out here). I still don't think that the question gives enought context to allow a simple answer.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply