InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comTue, 18 Jun 2013 23:56:43 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxNice Question..Sat, 03 Nov 2012 03:06:32 GMTkapil_kkhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxThis is one of those cases where MS contradicts itself, BoL says in one place that the limit is 256 and in another place that there it's limited only be available resources. That makes it a fun question.[url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms177634.aspx[/url] says there's a limit of 256.[url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspx[/url] says "Limited only by available resources".And when I went to click on 256 I somehow clicked on 32. Looks like I'm as careless as MS is!Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:47:36 GMTL' Eomot Inverséhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspx[quote][b]j.summers (1/4/2010)[/b][hr]Books OnLine for 2008:Tables per SELECT statement : Limited only by available resources[/quote]Thank you very much for sharing this observation.Best regards,HenrikTue, 05 Jan 2010 00:19:30 GMThenrik staun poulsenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxBooks OnLine for 2008:Tables per SELECT statement : Limited only by available resourcesMon, 04 Jan 2010 04:55:17 GMTJon Summershttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxActually you can guess with the options. There should have been options with 128 and 512 which would make this question more interesting.Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:38:59 GMTAnipaulhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxMy Total guess =1 Clustered + 249 Non Clustered + 6 spare slots (for internal use) = 256 indexes :DHow's that sound Jerry?--ShaunMon, 15 Dec 2008 02:56:04 GMTShaun McGuilehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxI guessed wrong (1024), such a natural number.... :PIt's really a trivia. no Google beforehandI still remember the discussion about max # of nonclustered indexes (which is 249), and how Microsoft came to that number is just... unknown. It's not 256, or 255.[url]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189280(SQL.90).aspx[/url][quote]The maximum number of nonclustered indexes that can be created per table is 249.[/quote]Fri, 12 Dec 2008 09:52:34 GMTJerry Hunghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxActually that's a distribution I would expect. this is a trivia question/answer, and unless you'd read Henrik's article the other day, it would be easy to have 1024, a logical number, or 30,000 stick in your head.30,000 has been thrown around a lot as its' the limit for sparse columns, someone might remember reading that.1024, lots of 1024 limits in computing.32 nesting levels in a trigger, might get confused, but that seems like a low, albeit more practical to read, number of tables in a trigger.You can google if you want for answers, but it somewhat defeats the idea. You know it or you don't. If you google, then you are semi-cheating yourself on the score.Fri, 12 Dec 2008 07:44:02 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspx[quote][b]Shaun McGuile (12/12/2008)[/b][hr]Does putting 20 tables into a view and then using 20 such views count as 400 tables or just 20?[/quote]In SQL Server 2000 (not sure about 2005 or 2008), it would count as 400. We used to have tables for each month and then views that covered an entire year and I would run into the limit often when trying to pull some data from them.ScottFri, 12 Dec 2008 06:55:14 GMTScott Arendthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxMore details on "Maximum Capacity Specifications for SQL Server" can be found on the below given link:http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143432.aspxFri, 12 Dec 2008 05:42:04 GMTArshad Ali-556241http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspx9% chose 30,000 - these people should not be anywhere near a keyboard never mind a database. :D31% picked 1024 - These people have no google skills. :D54% - got it right which implies, as I was one of them, that I know more than some people.;)6% - went for 32 these I would forgive for trying to be sensible. Like who adds more than 32 tables to a query - typing the SQL for the joins would be so fraught with risk.:PWell we should all realise that putting 256 tables into a Select is a bad idea to start with anyway....Does putting 20 tables into a view and then using 20 such views count as 400 tables or just 20?--ShaunFri, 12 Dec 2008 02:42:56 GMTShaun McGuilehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxexcept if you use a Table Value UDF (User Defined Function), as this example shows:http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Dynamic+SQL/65154/Best regards,Henrik Staun Poulsenwww.stovi.comThu, 11 Dec 2008 23:53:36 GMThenrik staun poulsenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic618362-32-1.aspxComments posted to this topic are about the item [B]<A HREF="/questions/Views/65210/">Views</A>[/B]Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:33:11 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editor