Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations derfloh on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Size after indexing
- Thread starter Gatorajc
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
Surprised you don't have a reply - are there no MS SQL Server gurus in this forum?
For what it's worth - based on my Oracle experience:
a) it depends on the number of non-NULL, distinct entries in the column indexed
b) if they are all non-NULL & distinct, then 10% of table size per index is typical (depends on rowlength of course) - this can mean that a complex table (many indexes) has more index than data!
My GUESS is that MS SQL will be about the same.
You're going to have to create indexes on that table . . . . DaPi - no silver bullet
For what it's worth - based on my Oracle experience:
a) it depends on the number of non-NULL, distinct entries in the column indexed
b) if they are all non-NULL & distinct, then 10% of table size per index is typical (depends on rowlength of course) - this can mean that a complex table (many indexes) has more index than data!
My GUESS is that MS SQL will be about the same.
You're going to have to create indexes on that table . . . . DaPi - no silver bullet
- Thread starter
- #4
10% would not be bad. The rowlength is quite large though. So it may be 15% but even that would still work. I had heard that it would make it 30% larger. Would it make a difference if it was clustered or non and what is the performance difference between the two? AJ
I would lose my head if it wasn't attached.![[roll1]](/data/assets/smilies/roll1.gif "[roll1] [roll1]")
I would lose my head if it wasn't attached.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question