No problem. Thanks.

I ran the test you included in the Blog entry and actually did get seeks at the .5% and .3% levels instead of scans, but that still absolutely supports what you said. I was having a hard time accepting it all until I realized that you and Craig where talking about things that didn't cover in the index.

Shifting back to the likes of things like calendar tables (keeps coming up because I'm considering writing an article about such things)... your examples seem to exemplify why to not fill it with a bunch of garbage that SQL has functions for. If you don't need to search for it, you might not want to include it in the actual table just because its convenient. Then again, if you use it a lot, maybe. Heh... "It Depends".

Thanks for the feedback and "SQL in the Wild".