|
|
|
SSCrazy Eights
        
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:14 PM
Points: 9,370,
Visits: 6,468
|
|
WilliamD- (12/7/2010) Slightly misleading wording. It should read "how many columns can be used in a nonclustered index key". The important part is to make clear that you are talking about the key columns of the index. Using the word "included" can be misinterpreted, especially since SQL 2005 where that is a keyword in indexing.
You are right, but the answers clearly stated that the question was about key columns. Furthermore, even if you did take in account included columns, no answer could have been correct.
How to post forum questions. Need an answer? No, you need a question. What’s the deal with Excel & SSIS?
Member of LinkedIn. My blog at LessThanDot.
 MCSA SQL Server 2012 - MCSE Business Intelligence
|
|
|
|
|
Mr or Mrs. 500
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 6:47 AM
Points: 581,
Visits: 694
|
|
| Nice, straight-forward question. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
SSCertifiable
       
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 2:37 PM
Points: 7,087,
Visits: 7,142
|
|
Nice question, and easy to get the "right" answer given the choices available. A small niggle is that the genuinely right answer ("It depends: 16 key columns if the table has no xml indexes, 15 key columns if there are any xml indexes") wasn't an option, but that shouldn't have lead to anyone picking any of the thoroughly wrong options. (Incidentally, I regard the introduction of XML into SQL in the way it has been done as a horrible mistake, and allowing it to interfere with cluster key column count limit in this was is really stupid.)
Tom Que conclure à la fin de tous mes longs propos? C'est que les préjugés sont la raison des sots. (Voltaire, 1756)
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232,
Visits: 1,046
|
|
WilliamD- (12/7/2010) Slightly misleading wording. It should read "how many columns can be used in a nonclustered index key".
Not certain what you mean, the correct answer was clearly "16 key columns". It was practicly cut and pasted from the BOL.
Nice Question. Simple, but apparently people are learning something from it.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:07 PM
Points: 37,687,
Visits: 29,946
|
|
Another phrasing problem with the question - the maximum size of an index is not 900 bytes. The maximum size of the key columns is 900 bytes. The index row can technically be up to 8000 bytes.
Gail Shaw Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:21 AM
Points: 2,163,
Visits: 2,148
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:51 AM
Points: 1,219,
Visits: 13,507
|
|
ops
rfr.ferrari DBA - SQL Server 2008 MCITP | MCTS
remember is live or suffer twice!
|
|
|
|
|
Ten Centuries
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,232,
Visits: 1,046
|
|
GilaMonster (12/7/2010) Another phrasing problem with the question - the maximum size of an index is not 900 bytes. The maximum size of the key columns is 900 bytes. The index row can technically be up to 8000 bytes.
Although what you say is correct, your wording also seems misleading.
The actual limitation is listed in the reference material as: Index key columns, excluding nonkeys, must follow the existing index size restrictions of 16 key columns maximum, and a total index key size of 900 bytes.
|
|
|
|
|
SSC-Dedicated
           
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 3:07 PM
Points: 37,687,
Visits: 29,946
|
|
SanDroid (12/7/2010) Although what you say is correct, your wording also seems misleading.
Why?
GilaMonster (12/7/2010) Another phrasing problem with the question - the maximum size of an index is not 900 bytes. The maximum size of the key columns is 900 bytes. The index row can technically be up to 8000 bytes.
Index key columns, excluding nonkeys, must follow the existing index size restrictions of 16 key columns maximum, and a total index key size of 900 bytes.
What's different about what you said and what I said?
Gail Shaw Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server 2008, MVP SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
|
|
|
|
|
SSCrazy
      
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:21 AM
Points: 2,163,
Visits: 2,148
|
|
GilaMonster (12/7/2010)
SanDroid (12/7/2010) Although what you say is correct, your wording also seems misleading.Why? GilaMonster (12/7/2010) Another phrasing problem with the question - the maximum size of an index is not 900 bytes. The maximum size of the key columns is 900 bytes. The index row can technically be up to 8000 bytes.Index key columns, excluding nonkeys, must follow the existing index size restrictions of 16 key columns maximum, and a total index key size of 900 bytes. What's different about what you said and what I said?
I think he is trying to say the difference between "total index key size of 900 bytes" and "maximum size of the key columns is 900 bytes". I don't know but can the "total key size" ever be larger than the "size of the key columns"? (Like in the case of a uniquefier automatically added to a clustered index?)
|
|
|
|