INCLUDE Clause

INCLUDE Clause

• Leonid B

  I forgot the third condition:

   

  C) Columns over 900 bytes

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  <Paully13x@discussions..microsoft.com> wrote in message news:972fe26e-0470-4cd1-b23d-e18d82faeb72@discussions.microsoft.com...

  Im trying to decide if I should or shouldnt use the INCLUDE clause on indexes in SQL 2005.. Or if I should continue creating standard covering indexes. I care mostly about the performance differences.. If anyone could share a definitive answer I would really appreciate it..
  
  Thanks,
  
  Paul

  
  

• dborgohain

  Gahh!  That should have read: 

   

  C) Columns totalling over 900 bytes

   

  :)

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  "Adam Machanic" <amachanic@hotmail._removetoemail_.com> wrote in message news:%23Hbrxxd%23FHA.424@TK2MSFTNGSA03.privatenews.microsoft.com...

  I forgot the third condition:

   

  C) Columns over 900 bytes

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  <Paully13x@discussions..microsoft.com> wrote in message news:972fe26e-0470-4cd1-b23d-e18d82faeb72@discussions.microsoft.com...

  Im trying to decide if I should or shouldnt use the INCLUDE clause on indexes in SQL 2005.. Or if I should continue creating standard covering indexes. I care mostly about the performance differences.. If anyone could share a definitive answer I would really appreciate it..
  
  Thanks,
  
  Paul

  
  

• sieweng

  Hi Paul,

   

  I don't think there is much of a difference between included column and non-included column covering indexes, unless you need to cover either:

   

  A) More than 16 columns

  or

  B) Columns that are LOB types

   

  If either of those cases apply, then INCLUDE becomes a good option.  Otherwise, from what I've seen so far, a 'standard' non-clustered index still works.

   

  
  --
  Adam Machanic
  Pro SQL Server 2005, available now
  http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457
  --

   

   

  <Paully13x@discussions..microsoft.com> wrote in message news:972fe26e-0470-4cd1-b23d-e18d82faeb72@discussions.microsoft.com...

  Im trying to decide if I should or shouldnt use the INCLUDE clause on indexes in SQL 2005.. Or if I should continue creating standard covering indexes. I care mostly about the performance differences.. If anyone could share a definitive answer I would really appreciate it..
  
  Thanks,
  
  Paul

  
  

• cmazur

  Cool.. Thats what I was thinking as well but I was wondering if there was something I am missing..
  
  

  NNTP User wrote:

  Hi Paul,   I don't think there is much of a difference between included column and non-included column covering indexes, unless you need to cover either:   A) More than 16 columns or B) Columns that are LOB types   If either of those cases apply, then INCLUDE becomes a good option.  Otherwise, from what I've seen so far, a 'standard' non-clustered index still works.   -- Adam Machanic Pro SQL Server 2005, available now http://www..apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html bID=457 --     <Paully13x@discussions..microsoft.com> wrote in message news:972fe26e-0470-4cd1-b23d-e18d82faeb72@discussions.microsoft.com... Im trying to decide if I should or shouldnt use the INCLUDE clause on indexes in SQL 2005.. Or if I should continue creating standard covering indexes. I care mostly about the performance differences.. If anyone could share a definitive answer I would really appreciate it.. Thanks, Paul

  
  
• INCLUDE Clause