Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

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.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 558245
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T12:06:41+00:00 2026-05-13T12:06:41+00:00

When I look at the execution plan for a particular query I find that

  • 0

When I look at the execution plan for a particular query I find that 77% of my cost is in a Clustered Index seek.

Does the fact that I’m using a clustered index mean that I won’t see performance issues due to the columns that I am outputting?

Would it be better for me to create a Non-Clustered version of this and include all of the columns that are being output?

UPDATE:
The clustered index uses a composite key. Not sure if this makes a difference.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T12:06:41+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 12:06 pm

    The reason you use include columns on a non-clustered index is to avoid “bookmark-lookups” into the clustered data. The thing is that if SQL Server could theoretically use a particular non-clustered index but the Optimiser estimates there will be ‘too many’ bookmark-lookups then said index will be ignored. However, if all selected columns are accessible directly from the index, there’ll be no need for a bookmark-lookup.

    In your case the fact that you’re accessing the data via “clustered index seek” is very promising. It will be very hard to improve on its performance. A non-clustered index including all selected columns may be slightly faster, but only because the raw data is a little less. (But don’t forget the cost of increased insert/update time.)

    However, you should check the detail…

    • If you’re using a composite key and the seek is actually only on the beginning of the key, you might not be so lucky. You may find the seek is only narrowing down to 500,000 rows and is then searching that based on other criteria. In this case experiment with some non-clustered indexes.
    • The clustered index seek itself may be fine; but if it is being done 100,000 times in your query because some other aspect is inefficiently returning too many rows – then you won’t gain much by improving the performance of the clustered index seek.

    Finally, to elaborate on davek’s comment: “cost is relative”. Just because the clustered is 77% of your query cost doesn’t mean there’s a problem. It is possible to write a trivial 1 table query that returns a sinlge row and clustered index seek cost at 100%. (But of course, being the only ‘work’ done, it will be 100% of the work… and 100% of instant is still instant.
    So: “Don’t worry; be happy!”

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Delegates look like such a powerful language feature, but I've yet to find an
I was simply wondering what methods folks are using to test their javascript's execution
I have an activity that has properties that look something like this (they're set
I know two approaches to Exception handling, lets have a look at them. Contract
Look at this image: alt text http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/4488/picture2ep3.png I know how to add UITableView with
Look at this situation: www.websitea.com displays an img tag with a src attribute of
I look around and see some great snippets of code for defining rules, validation,
Is it possible to look back through the history of a Subversion repository for
Some things look strange to me: What is the distinction between 0.0.0.0, 127.0.0.1, and
I know you can look at the row.count or tables.count, but are there other

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.