Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
Was scanning through a SQL2005 database and saw the following two indexes for a table:
**PK_CLUSTERED_INDEX**
USER_ID
COMPANY_ID
DEPARTMENT_ID
**NON-unique_NON-clustered_INDEX**
USER_ID
COMPANY_ID
My initial thought is, drop the last index since the PK_CLUSTERED_INDEX already contains those columns, correct order and sort. Do the last index provide any gains at all?
If searching by User_ID, or User_ID and Company_ID columns, both indexes could fulfil that.
However, only the PK index would then be ideal if the Department_Id is also queried on in addition to those 2 fields.
If a query filters on User_ID and Company_ID, and needs to return other data columns then the PK index is still best as it has all the data there to hand. Whereas the nonclustered index doesn’t so would probably need a Key Lookup to pull out the extra fields which is not as efficient.
It looks redundant to me, so I’d definitely be considering removing it.
To see whether an index is actually being used/get a feel for the level of usage, you can run one of the various index usage stats scripts out there. A good example is here.