mjackson-1128654 (11/11/2009)
No reason to store it twice. It was included in the index only because it seemed faster.
What I meant was, why not make those columns the clustered index, so you only store the data once? Sorry I wasn't clear enough on that.
Doesn't have anything to do with the include column of the non-clustered index. Has to do with defining the clustered index for best efficiency.
- Gus "GSquared", RSVP, OODA, MAP, NMVP, FAQ, SAT, SQL, DNA, RNA, UOI, IOU, AM, PM, AD, BC, BCE, USA, UN, CF, ROFL, LOL, ETC
Property of The Thread
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everyone agrees it's old enough to know better." - Anon