Re: index
- From: David BL <davidbl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 02:07:47 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 29, 1:18 pm, "Brian Selzer" <br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David BL" <davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f08bba46-7bd1-443e-97fd-fe07a9ec1a3f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jul 29, 10:45 am, "Brian Selzer" <br...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"David BL" <davi...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Physical duplication of data can be appropriate to increase read
performance at the expense of write performance. Indeed any secondary
index is a form of redundancy that hurts write performance.
Boosting read performance can be accomplished just as well with a
covering
non-clustered index as with a clustered index.
That is not always true. There could be an application involving a
query that uses the non-clustered index and also needs *all* the
additional data in the record. The additional seeks could mean the
read performance doesn’t meet the requirements.
If the index is a /covering/ index, then there is no need for the additional
read.
But then it won’t be a non-clustered index.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: index
- From: Brian Selzer
- Re: index
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: index
- Next by Date: Re: index
- Previous by thread: Re: index
- Next by thread: Re: index
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|