I use this:

USE dbName;

SELECTid

,indid

,OBJECT_NAME(id)

,[name]

,rowcnt

,rowmodctr

,STATS_DATE(id, indid) AS Date_LastUpdated

FROM sys.sysindexes WITH ( NOLOCK )

WHERE indid > 0 AND indid < 255 AND

OBJECTPROPERTY(id, 'IsUserTable') = 1 AND -- system tables excluded

INDEXPROPERTY(id, name,...

sotn (6/4/2008)

---

Sorry I don't think I stressed the specific understanding issue properly, I meant that for a 32-bit app to access more than 2GB does it require AWE to be...

sotn (6/4/2008)

---

I thought I understood the /3GB and AWE settings until this thread.

I have a 4GB box SQL2005 Std Edition if I have the /3GB switch and AWE is NOT...

Good catch, thanks!...

Hmm, the results are a lot less striking if instead of a UNIQUE constraint, we specify a CLUSTERED PRIMARY KEY:

CREATE TABLE #t1 (c1 int, c2 int, c3 char(5000));

CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX...

Steve Jones - Editor (6/3/2008)

---

Marios,

That's an interesting scenario. I haven't dealt with it, but my thoughts are that you enable AWE on all instances. With 2-3GB for each instance, I...

george sibbald (6/3/2008) Marios,

looks like it could be an 'it depends ' situation. I have always worked to using the /3Gb switch if RAM under 16GB. This is because 1GB...

GilaMonster (6/3/2008)

---

Nope. Even under 16GB you risk starving the kernal of memory.

Personally I would...

colin Leversuch-Roberts (6/2/2008)

---

Most important don't compare x64 and x32 sql server. The awe tick box remains in x64 but it does absolutely nothing, at all, ever, ever.

x32 -...

Stress (6/2/2008)

---

Marios Philippopoulos (6/2/2008)

---

from the blog of Colin Leversuch-Roberts http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/:

What I’ve found in large production systems is that you cannot guarantee that data on every index is held in the...

from the blog of Colin Leversuch-Roberts http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/:

What I’ve found in large production systems is that you cannot guarantee that data on every index is held in the dmvs at all...

You may well have stumbled on a bug here -

I will do some more searching on the web for similar info.

I think sys.dm_db_index_usage_stats is sensitive ONLY to index operations in the WHERE clause:

eg. index operations taking place in a JOIN are not counted.

Stress (6/2/2008)

---

Hi.

I have seen lots of examples on the 2005 index usages DMV, but one thing has eluded me : it only seems shows access stats for the dbo....

colin Leversuch-Roberts (6/2/2008)

---

you don't have enough memory and if you enable the /3gb switch all instances will share the 3gb vas. I think there may be some confusion over...