Alex Fekken (9/3/2012)
L' Eomot Inversé (9/2/2012)
Well, the non-clustered index with included columns is an amusing concept, and I'm astounded that so many people (44% now) believe in such a fabulous beast.
Not only do I believe in them, but I use them a lot as well. 🙂
:blush: :w00t:
So do I!
If you meant "clustered index with included columns", then I believe in those as well because a clustered index always includes all of its columns. So this should have counted as a correct answer. (The answer wasn't about clustered indexes with an INCLUDE clause in their definition, but clustered indexes with included columns)
yes, that's what I meant. And to me the question seemed to be about t-sql syntax as well as semantics, so it was indeed about clustered indexes with INCLUDE clause.
Tom