Hello,
if you create this table:
create table hello (
int a
, int b
constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( a, b )
)
and then insert the following records
a,b
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,1
2,2
2,3
3,1
3,2
3,3
and then do
select a,b from hello
the output seems to be:
a,b
1,1
2,1
3,1
1,2
2,2
3,2
1,3
2,3
3,3
which is wrong and (i think) is reflecting the actual index order
and physical order on disk
it should be:
a,b
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,1
2,2
2,3
3,1
3,2
3,3
i have tested this on a table with 500,000 records
and sure enough if you declare the clustered primary key fields in
reverse order:
constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( b, a )
two things happen:
- the select with no order by returns the records in the expected order
- queries relying on that order run MUCH FASTER
has anyone else seen / noticed this? 9 4468
John Rivers wrote: Hello,
if you create this table:
create table hello ( int a , int b constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( a, b ) )
and then insert the following records
a,b 1,1 1,2 1,3 2,1 2,2 2,3 3,1 3,2 3,3
and then do
select a,b from hello
the output seems to be:
a,b 1,1 2,1 3,1 1,2 2,2 3,2 1,3 2,3 3,3
which is wrong and (i think) is reflecting the actual index order and physical order on disk
This is not wrong at all. As long as you do not have an "ORDER BY"
clause the RDBMS is free to return records in *any* order.
it should be:
a,b 1,1 1,2 1,3 2,1 2,2 2,3 3,1 3,2 3,3
i have tested this on a table with 500,000 records
and sure enough if you declare the clustered primary key fields in reverse order:
constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( b, a )
two things happen:
- the select with no order by returns the records in the expected order
Again: you have to adjust your expectations.
- queries relying on that order run MUCH FASTER
has anyone else seen / noticed this?
Yes.
Cheers
robert
Order is not guaranteed unless you include an ORDER BY. This is by design.
--
Tom
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
..
"John Rivers" <fi*****@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@e56g2000cwe.googlegr oups.com...
Hello,
if you create this table:
create table hello (
int a
, int b
constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( a, b )
)
and then insert the following records
a,b
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,1
2,2
2,3
3,1
3,2
3,3
and then do
select a,b from hello
the output seems to be:
a,b
1,1
2,1
3,1
1,2
2,2
3,2
1,3
2,3
3,3
which is wrong and (i think) is reflecting the actual index order
and physical order on disk
it should be:
a,b
1,1
1,2
1,3
2,1
2,2
2,3
3,1
3,2
3,3
i have tested this on a table with 500,000 records
and sure enough if you declare the clustered primary key fields in
reverse order:
constraint pk_hello primary key clustered ( b, a )
two things happen:
- the select with no order by returns the records in the expected order
- queries relying on that order run MUCH FASTER
has anyone else seen / noticed this?
Let's get back to the basics of an RDBMS. Rows are not records; fields
are not columns; tables are not files; there is no sequential access or
ordering in an RDBMS, so "first", "next" and "last" are totally
meaningless. If you want an ordering, then you need to have a column
that defines that ordering. You must use an ORDER BY clause on a
cursor or in an OVER() clause.
You need to read a book on RDBMS; you are still locked into a file
system mind set.
Hello,
when a clustered index is present the records *are* physically ordered
on disk to match the index
that is the whole point of a clustered index
and by default a select statement with no ORDER BY will always return
data in the order of the clustered index (when present)
this can easily be proved by watching the Execution Plan
the issue i am trying to highlight concerns the order of the records on
disk when a *compound* clustered index is present
i have seen cases when it is not as expected
maybe you can enjoy reading that RDBMS book :-)
best wishes,
john
John Rivers wrote: Hello,
when a clustered index is present the records *are* physically ordered on disk to match the index
that is the whole point of a clustered index
and by default a select statement with no ORDER BY will always return data in the order of the clustered index (when present)
Um. No. I've seen it return them out of order with only a few hundred
rows. As soon as the table is occupying more than one page, the query
optimizer *can* decide to produce a parallel plan. You'll see the
result as chunks of output which are in clustered index order, but no
deterministic ordering between the chunks. e.g. it'll look like:
1
2
3
4
5
11
12
13
14
15
6
7
8
9
10
The *only* way to guarantee the order of output is to put an order by
clause on your select statement.
Damien
John Rivers wrote: and by default a select statement with no ORDER BY will always return data in the order of the clustered index (when present)
Not true at all. As Joe says, tables are not logically ordered. There
is no guarantee that any queries will match the physical order on disk
or in a clustered index.
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/m...S,SQL.90).aspx
--
On 28 Apr 2006 05:41:26 -0700, John Rivers wrote: Hello,
when a clustered index is present the records *are* physically ordered on disk to match the index
that is the whole point of a clustered index
Hi John,
Correct.
and by default a select statement with no ORDER BY will always return data in the order of the clustered index (when present)
Incorrect. Damien already pointed out the risk of parallellism.
Another potential issue is an optimization technique MS employs called
"piggybacking" - if a query on another connection is in the middle of a
tbale scan on the table you need, the DB will use the values coming in
for your query as well, then (when the first query's table scan is
finished) restart the scan from start up to where it started to
piggyback. The results would be like 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5
This is almost impossible to reproduce in a test environment, but it
MIGHT happen intermittently in a heavily used production DB. Tough lluck
if your app expects the rows to be in order, even without ORDER BY.
the issue i am trying to highlight concerns the order of the records on disk when a *compound* clustered index is present
i have seen cases when it is not as expected
How did you "see" those cases? Using a query reallly doesn't prove
anything. Did you issue DBCC PAGE commands to inspect the actual
contents of the index and data pages?
--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
John Rivers (fi*****@btinternet.com) writes: when a clustered index is present the records *are* physically ordered on disk to match the index
that is the whole point of a clustered index
Actually, they are ordered if you follow the page links. But if pages
are in disorder, the physical order on disk may be yet another one.
and by default a select statement with no ORDER BY will always return data in the order of the clustered index (when present)
No. This may have been true by chance for SQL Server up version 6.5. It is
definitely not correct for SQL 7 and later.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Thanks for your knowledgable answers
I will check out DBCC PAGE This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Damir Mikoc |
last post by:
Hi all,
I work on some J2EE application in Oracle JDeveloper.
But my problem is that Oracle's OC4J does not support CMP entity beans
with CMR and Compound Primary key.
My simple question is:...
|
by: skidvd |
last post by:
Hello:
I have just recently converted to using the InnoDB table type so that
I can enforce FOREIGN key constraints. I have been using MyISAM
tables (accessed via JDBC) successfully for some...
|
by: Mark |
last post by:
BEGINNER QUESTION
I have a table which has a compound primary key consisting of two columns.
One of these columns is a foreign key which is generated in another table by
an identity.
I want...
|
by: Philip |
last post by:
Hey all,
(Access 2000)
I've been having a horror story with this design problem. My Database is
Structured like This: AUTHORS, BOOKS, PAGES. Those are the Tables and each
Item in each table...
|
by: David W. Fenton |
last post by:
I'm generally against using compound keys, except in join tables,
but I'm currently mapping out a schema where the join table has
child records. The application is for fund-raising and I have four...
|
by: Eric Laberge |
last post by:
Aloha!
This question is meant to be about C99 and unnamed compound objects. As I
read, if such a construct as
int *p = (int){0};
is used within a function, then it has "automatic storage...
|
by: Todd Webb |
last post by:
I would like to talk to the COM implementation of
Structured Storage from C#. I would like a C# equivalent
of StgCreateStorageEx.
I expected to find support in the stdole Primary Interop...
|
by: wespvp |
last post by:
I am using PostgreSQL 7.4.1 on RedHat 7.2.
The query I am executing is something like (I replaced all the return values
with 'count'):
db=> explain select count(*) from messages m join (select...
|
by: vincibleman |
last post by:
Howdy all,
Working my way into SQL from Access. Think I might have the hang of the basics, but would really appreciate a sanity check. The stored procedure listed below works, but I can't help...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows...
| |