July 16, 2009 at 2:49 pm
2005 has missing index DMVs and DMFs, I use them.:-P:cool:
Jason
http://dbace.us
😛
July 30, 2009 at 3:03 am
Hi Andy,
Very nice article, I share your opinion on this matter.
One little note I want to add: when a primary key with unique clustered index is created from the EM or MS user interface it is always created with ASC(ENDING) sort order. When creating base tables (e.g.: customer, item, various lookups etc.) sort order usually is not an issue, but when it comes to creating transactional tables (e.g.: orders, registrations, invoices etc.) which usually grow large you do best by changing the ASC(ENDING) sort order to DESC(ENDING). By doing so you may greatly speed up queries to current data.
Regards,
Jaap Bregman.
July 30, 2009 at 5:41 am
jswong05 (7/16/2009)
2005 has missing index DMVs and DMFs, I use them.:-P:cool:
But you test their results, right? Those things are notorious for suggesting poor choices on indexes. You need to exercise a lot of diligence when using that data.
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood"
- Theodore Roosevelt
Author of:
SQL Server Execution Plans
SQL Server Query Performance Tuning
July 31, 2009 at 2:16 pm
oh yes, you tweak them to get it right. do you have anything better? would you rather find out possible missing index manually?:hehe::cool::w00t:;-):-P:-D:-) If you look at missing index DMF, there is nothing notorious about it.
Jason
http://dbace.us
😛
July 31, 2009 at 2:19 pm
which usually grow large you do best by changing the ASC(ENDING) sort order to DESC(ENDING). By doing so you may greatly
I am not sure why you say so, can you elaborate more?
Jason
http://dbace.us
😛
Viewing 5 posts - 181 through 184 (of 184 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply