moving a heap to another filegroup

[el emperador]

I have a big table (heap)... well, not so big, I have a small server
and I want to spread access to it across several new disks dedicated
only to that table.

I known its possible to do that creating a clustered index with "ON
filegroup" option but I want to maintain it as a heap, is there any
way to do this without dropping indexes/references - bulk unload -
create table - bulk load - create indexes?.

[Simon Hayes]

"el emperador" <14*******@terra.es> wrote in message
news:dc**************************@posting.google.c om...

I have a big table (heap)... well, not so big, I have a small server
and I want to spread access to it across several new disks dedicated
only to that table.

I known its possible to do that creating a clustered index with "ON
filegroup" option but I want to maintain it as a heap, is there any
way to do this without dropping indexes/references - bulk unload -
create table - bulk load - create indexes?.

As far as I know, you have to drop everything and recreate it, as you have
described. But in general, in MSSQL it's a good idea to have a clustered
index on all tables, so it would be interesting to know why you prefer to
maintain a heap table.

Simon

[el emperador]

"Simon Hayes" <sq*@hayes.ch> wrote in message news:<41**********@news.bluewin.ch>...

"el emperador" <14*******@terra.es> wrote in message
news:dc**************************@posting.google.c om...

I have a big table (heap)... well, not so big, I have a small server
and I want to spread access to it across several new disks dedicated
only to that table.

I known its possible to do that creating a clustered index with "ON
filegroup" option but I want to maintain it as a heap, is there any
way to do this without dropping indexes/references - bulk unload -
create table - bulk load - create indexes?.
As far as I know, you have to drop everything and recreate it, as you have
described. But in general, in MSSQL it's a good idea to have a clustered
index on all tables, so it would be interesting to know why you prefer to

I agree.
maintain a heap table.
Well, I have found that after define a clustered index some queries
changed their plan (from a "Index Seek"-->"Nested Loops"-->"Bookmark
Lookup" to a "Clustered Index Seek") and surprisingly got a little
slower, that's suggar for the query optimizer so it thinks its better
to use it, I have to investigate why this happens before define "the
correct" clustered index, a not easy task as you know. Right now I
only want to improve "bookmark lookup" on this table that is 60%-80%
of the weigth of the queries.

Simon

Thanks

[John Bell]

Hi

Adding the clustered index in the new filegroup and then dropping it will
leave the data in the new filegroup. Your other indexes will be rebuilt
twice though, so it may be quicker to drop and re-create them yourself.

John
"el emperador" <14*******@terra.es> wrote in message
news:dc************************@posting.google.com ...

"Simon Hayes" <sq*@hayes.ch> wrote in message news:<41**********@news.bluewin.ch>...

"el emperador" <14*******@terra.es> wrote in message
news:dc**************************@posting.google.c om...

I have a big table (heap)... well, not so big, I have a small server
and I want to spread access to it across several new disks dedicated
only to that table.

I known its possible to do that creating a clustered index with "ON
filegroup" option but I want to maintain it as a heap, is there any
way to do this without dropping indexes/references - bulk unload -
create table - bulk load - create indexes?.

As far as I know, you have to drop everything and recreate it, as you have described. But in general, in MSSQL it's a good idea to have a clustered
index on all tables, so it would be interesting to know why you prefer

to
I agree.

maintain a heap table.

Well, I have found that after define a clustered index some queries
changed their plan (from a "Index Seek"-->"Nested Loops"-->"Bookmark
Lookup" to a "Clustered Index Seek") and surprisingly got a little
slower, that's suggar for the query optimizer so it thinks its better
to use it, I have to investigate why this happens before define "the
correct" clustered index, a not easy task as you know. Right now I
only want to improve "bookmark lookup" on this table that is 60%-80%
of the weigth of the queries.

Simon

Thanks

[el emperador]

"John Bell" <jb************@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<dB***********************@news-text.cableinet.net>...

Hi

Adding the clustered index in the new filegroup and then dropping it will
leave the data in the new filegroup. Your other indexes will be rebuilt
twice though, so it may be quicker to drop and re-create them yourself.

John

Thanks John, that's perfect.