Which of these indexes should be deleted?

Question

Which of these indexes should be deleted?

Viewing 7 posts - 16 through 21 (of 21 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 1

Huh? Don't understand what you're asking

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

sm_iransoftware Ten Centuries Points: 1228 More actions · Answer 2

I run this query on my database.

Most of the result are : PK_ ... ?

Why?

(note that in all our tables , we insert an id column - identical - that is pk and clustered index. and Unrelated to business)

What do I do now?

change cluster? delete cluster?

Phil Parkin SSC Guru Points: 246963 More actions · Answer 3

sm_iransoftware (1/29/2015)
I run this query on my database.
Most of the result are : PK_ ... ?
Why?
(note that in all our tables , we insert an id column - identical - that is pk and clustered index. and Unrelated to business)
What do I do now?
change cluster? delete cluster?

I presume that you aren't really talking about clusters, but clustered indexes. Deleting a cluster is quite a radical solution.

Can you post a sample create table script for one of these?

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
- Martin Rees
The absence of consumable DDL, sample data and desired results is, however, evidence of the absence of my response
- Phil Parkin

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 4

sm_iransoftware (1/29/2015)
I run this query on my database.
Most of the result are : PK_ ... ?

Those are probably the indexes enforcing the primary keys.

What do I do now?
change cluster? delete cluster?

Why do you think you need to do anything?

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

sm_iransoftware Ten Centuries Points: 1228 More actions · Answer 5

Because I read somewhere , PK and Clustered index, can be separate (These two do not necessarily Be one thing)

And it's better that clustered index related to Bussiness and on a benefit field that use in queries.

Phil Parkin SSC Guru Points: 246963 More actions · Answer 6

sm_iransoftware (1/30/2015)
Because I read somewhere , PK and Clustered index, can be separate (These two do not necessarily Be one thing)
And it's better that clustered index related to Bussiness and on a benefit field that use in queries.

Which question are you answering here?

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
- Martin Rees
The absence of consumable DDL, sample data and desired results is, however, evidence of the absence of my response
- Phil Parkin

Gail Shaw SSC Guru Points: 1004504 More actions · Answer 7

sm_iransoftware (1/30/2015)
Because I read somewhere , PK and Clustered index, can be separate (These two do not necessarily Be one thing)

They can be, yes.

And it's better that clustered index related to Bussiness and on a benefit field that use in queries.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on queries, tables and a whole lot more. Changing a clustered index requires a huge amount of testing first. It's not something you do without analysis and testing first.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass