MSSQL - Primary Key Clustered specifying multiple columns
I've inherited a database (MSSQL 2008R2) with a lot of tables that either have NO primary key or primary key's that look like this:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Distribution_Batch] ADD CONSTRAINT
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[BATCH_ID] ASC,
[DATE_CREATED] ASC,
[CONTACT_ID] ASC,
[LAB_CODE] ASC,
[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE] ASC,
[CREATOR] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
Here is the table itself, these are the columns:
SELECT TOP (1000) [BATCH_ID] --- this is a varchar(100) field
,[LAB_CODE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE]
,[CONTACT_ID]
,[CREATOR]
,[DESCRIPTION]
,[DATE_CREATED]
,[DATE_COMPLETED]
,[DATE_DEADLINE]
,[DATE_CONFIRMED]
,[ERROR_CODE]
,[CONTENT]
,[ADDED_BY]
,[SOURCE]
,[STATUS]
,[DELIVERY_METHOD]
,[FILE_SIZE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_FORMAT]
,[CONTACT_ID_ORIGINAL]
FROM [dbo].[Distribution_Batch]
All this table does is queue up distribution jobs to be run by our application. Nothing fancy.
They have indexes on numerous columns:
[DistributionBatch-ContactId-DistributionType-20161108-121538]
[idx_date_completed]
[idx_date_created]
[idx_DistribBatch_BatchId]
[idx_Distribution_Contacts]
[IX_Distribution_Batch]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_DISTRIBUTION_TYPE_STATUS_DATE_COMPLETED]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS_DELIVERY_METHOD]
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23]
The system overall is slow and the admins response has always been to add more indexes to each table. This table spits out data sequentially based on whether it is completed or not. I can't understand why they would have so many indexes on columns that are never sorted on. Am I missing something?
My question is 2 parts:
Part 1) Does that primary key make any sense? Shouldn't the primary key just be an ID (int), starting at 1 with identity spec and auto incrementing?
Part 2) I need confirmation that none of those indexes make sense and are not necessary. There are a lot more tables that have this same issue.
This database has 190 GB of data and 101 GB of indexes.
All comments and opinions greatly appreciated.
sql-server t-sql
New contributor
add a comment |
I've inherited a database (MSSQL 2008R2) with a lot of tables that either have NO primary key or primary key's that look like this:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Distribution_Batch] ADD CONSTRAINT
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[BATCH_ID] ASC,
[DATE_CREATED] ASC,
[CONTACT_ID] ASC,
[LAB_CODE] ASC,
[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE] ASC,
[CREATOR] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
Here is the table itself, these are the columns:
SELECT TOP (1000) [BATCH_ID] --- this is a varchar(100) field
,[LAB_CODE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE]
,[CONTACT_ID]
,[CREATOR]
,[DESCRIPTION]
,[DATE_CREATED]
,[DATE_COMPLETED]
,[DATE_DEADLINE]
,[DATE_CONFIRMED]
,[ERROR_CODE]
,[CONTENT]
,[ADDED_BY]
,[SOURCE]
,[STATUS]
,[DELIVERY_METHOD]
,[FILE_SIZE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_FORMAT]
,[CONTACT_ID_ORIGINAL]
FROM [dbo].[Distribution_Batch]
All this table does is queue up distribution jobs to be run by our application. Nothing fancy.
They have indexes on numerous columns:
[DistributionBatch-ContactId-DistributionType-20161108-121538]
[idx_date_completed]
[idx_date_created]
[idx_DistribBatch_BatchId]
[idx_Distribution_Contacts]
[IX_Distribution_Batch]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_DISTRIBUTION_TYPE_STATUS_DATE_COMPLETED]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS_DELIVERY_METHOD]
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23]
The system overall is slow and the admins response has always been to add more indexes to each table. This table spits out data sequentially based on whether it is completed or not. I can't understand why they would have so many indexes on columns that are never sorted on. Am I missing something?
My question is 2 parts:
Part 1) Does that primary key make any sense? Shouldn't the primary key just be an ID (int), starting at 1 with identity spec and auto incrementing?
Part 2) I need confirmation that none of those indexes make sense and are not necessary. There are a lot more tables that have this same issue.
This database has 190 GB of data and 101 GB of indexes.
All comments and opinions greatly appreciated.
sql-server t-sql
New contributor
add a comment |
I've inherited a database (MSSQL 2008R2) with a lot of tables that either have NO primary key or primary key's that look like this:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Distribution_Batch] ADD CONSTRAINT
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[BATCH_ID] ASC,
[DATE_CREATED] ASC,
[CONTACT_ID] ASC,
[LAB_CODE] ASC,
[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE] ASC,
[CREATOR] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
Here is the table itself, these are the columns:
SELECT TOP (1000) [BATCH_ID] --- this is a varchar(100) field
,[LAB_CODE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE]
,[CONTACT_ID]
,[CREATOR]
,[DESCRIPTION]
,[DATE_CREATED]
,[DATE_COMPLETED]
,[DATE_DEADLINE]
,[DATE_CONFIRMED]
,[ERROR_CODE]
,[CONTENT]
,[ADDED_BY]
,[SOURCE]
,[STATUS]
,[DELIVERY_METHOD]
,[FILE_SIZE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_FORMAT]
,[CONTACT_ID_ORIGINAL]
FROM [dbo].[Distribution_Batch]
All this table does is queue up distribution jobs to be run by our application. Nothing fancy.
They have indexes on numerous columns:
[DistributionBatch-ContactId-DistributionType-20161108-121538]
[idx_date_completed]
[idx_date_created]
[idx_DistribBatch_BatchId]
[idx_Distribution_Contacts]
[IX_Distribution_Batch]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_DISTRIBUTION_TYPE_STATUS_DATE_COMPLETED]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS_DELIVERY_METHOD]
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23]
The system overall is slow and the admins response has always been to add more indexes to each table. This table spits out data sequentially based on whether it is completed or not. I can't understand why they would have so many indexes on columns that are never sorted on. Am I missing something?
My question is 2 parts:
Part 1) Does that primary key make any sense? Shouldn't the primary key just be an ID (int), starting at 1 with identity spec and auto incrementing?
Part 2) I need confirmation that none of those indexes make sense and are not necessary. There are a lot more tables that have this same issue.
This database has 190 GB of data and 101 GB of indexes.
All comments and opinions greatly appreciated.
sql-server t-sql
New contributor
I've inherited a database (MSSQL 2008R2) with a lot of tables that either have NO primary key or primary key's that look like this:
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[Distribution_Batch] ADD CONSTRAINT
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23] PRIMARY KEY CLUSTERED
(
[BATCH_ID] ASC,
[DATE_CREATED] ASC,
[CONTACT_ID] ASC,
[LAB_CODE] ASC,
[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE] ASC,
[CREATOR] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, IGNORE_DUP_KEY = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON) ON [PRIMARY]
Here is the table itself, these are the columns:
SELECT TOP (1000) [BATCH_ID] --- this is a varchar(100) field
,[LAB_CODE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_TYPE]
,[CONTACT_ID]
,[CREATOR]
,[DESCRIPTION]
,[DATE_CREATED]
,[DATE_COMPLETED]
,[DATE_DEADLINE]
,[DATE_CONFIRMED]
,[ERROR_CODE]
,[CONTENT]
,[ADDED_BY]
,[SOURCE]
,[STATUS]
,[DELIVERY_METHOD]
,[FILE_SIZE]
,[DISTRIBUTION_FORMAT]
,[CONTACT_ID_ORIGINAL]
FROM [dbo].[Distribution_Batch]
All this table does is queue up distribution jobs to be run by our application. Nothing fancy.
They have indexes on numerous columns:
[DistributionBatch-ContactId-DistributionType-20161108-121538]
[idx_date_completed]
[idx_date_created]
[idx_DistribBatch_BatchId]
[idx_Distribution_Contacts]
[IX_Distribution_Batch]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_DISTRIBUTION_TYPE_STATUS_DATE_COMPLETED]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_LAB_CODE_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS]
[IX_Distribution_Batch_STATUS_DELIVERY_METHOD]
[PK_Distribution_Batch_1__23]
The system overall is slow and the admins response has always been to add more indexes to each table. This table spits out data sequentially based on whether it is completed or not. I can't understand why they would have so many indexes on columns that are never sorted on. Am I missing something?
My question is 2 parts:
Part 1) Does that primary key make any sense? Shouldn't the primary key just be an ID (int), starting at 1 with identity spec and auto incrementing?
Part 2) I need confirmation that none of those indexes make sense and are not necessary. There are a lot more tables that have this same issue.
This database has 190 GB of data and 101 GB of indexes.
All comments and opinions greatly appreciated.
sql-server t-sql
sql-server t-sql
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked 3 mins ago
Michael FeverMichael Fever
1011
1011
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "182"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Michael Fever is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232885%2fmssql-primary-key-clustered-specifying-multiple-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Michael Fever is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Michael Fever is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Michael Fever is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Michael Fever is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f232885%2fmssql-primary-key-clustered-specifying-multiple-columns%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown