Do other RDMS have clustered indexes?

i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective enough.
So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tuning
option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order
of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query optimization?I recall a long long time ago working with the OS/2 version of DB2 (DB2/2):
You did a rebuild of the table to cluster it. This was a once operation. At the end of the table
(imagine pages and extents), you had overflow pages. New rows were not inserted in place, but were
added to these overflow pages. So, you didn't get the fragmentation aspects of SQL Server, but there
was some extra cost for looking up these overflow pages.
All above is from memory, from around 1991. This might have been special to the OS/2 version of DB2,
and/or it might have been changed since.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the clustered index is the
>physical sort order of data in a table. And once i have this technique available to me, i can take
>advantage of it to group low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tuning option. Does Oracle,
> MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order of a table - and be able to take advantage
> of that for query optimization?
>|||With DB2 you can create a single clustered index on a table and specify
whether or not you want it ASC or DESC. You can also specify to either
allow or disallow Reverse Scans.
In addition DB2 v. 8.2 has added functionality to eliminate the limit
of one clustered index per table. They have what is call an MDC (Multi
Dimensional Cluster) which allows you to effectively create more than
one clustered index on a single table. They do this by arranging the
data into blocks rather than index pages. The are extremely effective
in performance tuning where you have a large data set.|||Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
Servers clustered index.
DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs used
to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there was no
guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically once the
clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is statistics
present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL Server, because
MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to locate a row from
a non-clustered index)|||"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
>clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
>have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
>low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance
> tuning option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical
> sort order of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query
> optimization?
In Oracle an "Index-Organized Table" is the equivalent as a SQL Server
clustered index. There are some minor differences in implementation, for
instance, the requirement that the "clustered index" must be the primary
key. But they are pretty much the same thing.
David|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
> Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
> Servers clustered index.
> DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs
> used to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there
> was no guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically
> once the clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is
> statistics present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL
> Server, because MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to
> locate a row from a non-clustered index)
MaxDB has a similar feature: *all* tables are stored the way MS SQL Server
tables with a clustered index are stored. The index used is the PK of the
table and if there is no PK then a hidden column with a synthetic value is
added and used for the PK.
Kind regards
robert

Do other RDMS have clustered indexes?

i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective enough.
So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tuning
option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order
of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query optimization?I recall a long long time ago working with the OS/2 version of DB2 (DB2/2):
You did a rebuild of the table to cluster it. This was a once operation. At
the end of the table
(imagine pages and extents), you had overflow pages. New rows were not inser
ted in place, but were
added to these overflow pages. So, you didn't get the fragmentation aspects
of SQL Server, but there
was some extra cost for looking up these overflow pages.
All above is from memory, from around 1991. This might have been special to
the OS/2 version of DB2,
and/or it might have been changed since.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the cl
ustered index is the
>physical sort order of data in a table. And once i have this technique avai
lable to me, i can take
>advantage of it to group low-cardinality rows together, where an index woul
d not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tunin
g option. Does Oracle,
> MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order of a table - and be
able to take advantage
> of that for query optimization?
>|||With DB2 you can create a single clustered index on a table and specify
whether or not you want it ASC or DESC. You can also specify to either
allow or disallow Reverse Scans.
In addition DB2 v. 8.2 has added functionality to eliminate the limit
of one clustered index per table. They have what is call an MDC (Multi
Dimensional Cluster) which allows you to effectively create more than
one clustered index on a single table. They do this by arranging the
data into blocks rather than index pages. The are extremely effective
in performance tuning where you have a large data set.|||Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
Servers clustered index.
DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs used
to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there was no
guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically once the
clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is statistics
present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL Server, because
MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to locate a row from
a non-clustered index)|||"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
>clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
>have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
>low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance
> tuning option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical
> sort order of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query
> optimization?
In Oracle an "Index-Organized Table" is the equivalent as a SQL Server
clustered index. There are some minor differences in implementation, for
instance, the requirement that the "clustered index" must be the primary
key. But they are pretty much the same thing.
David|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
> Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
> Servers clustered index.
> DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs
> used to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there
> was no guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically
> once the clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is
> statistics present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL
> Server, because MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to
> locate a row from a non-clustered index)
MaxDB has a similar feature: *all* tables are stored the way MS SQL Server
tables with a clustered index are stored. The index used is the PK of the
table and if there is no PK then a hidden column with a synthetic value is
added and used for the PK.
Kind regards
robert

Do other RDMS have clustered indexes?

i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective enough.
So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tuning
option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order
of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query optimization?
I recall a long long time ago working with the OS/2 version of DB2 (DB2/2):
You did a rebuild of the table to cluster it. This was a once operation. At the end of the table
(imagine pages and extents), you had overflow pages. New rows were not inserted in place, but were
added to these overflow pages. So, you didn't get the fragmentation aspects of SQL Server, but there
was some extra cost for looking up these overflow pages.
All above is from memory, from around 1991. This might have been special to the OS/2 version of DB2,
and/or it might have been changed since.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the clustered index is the
>physical sort order of data in a table. And once i have this technique available to me, i can take
>advantage of it to group low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance tuning option. Does Oracle,
> MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical sort order of a table - and be able to take advantage
> of that for query optimization?
>
|||With DB2 you can create a single clustered index on a table and specify
whether or not you want it ASC or DESC. You can also specify to either
allow or disallow Reverse Scans.
In addition DB2 v. 8.2 has added functionality to eliminate the limit
of one clustered index per table. They have what is call an MDC (Multi
Dimensional Cluster) which allows you to effectively create more than
one clustered index on a single table. They do this by arranging the
data into blocks rather than index pages. The are extremely effective
in performance tuning where you have a large data set.
|||Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
Servers clustered index.
DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs used
to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there was no
guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically once the
clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is statistics
present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL Server, because
MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to locate a row from
a non-clustered index)
|||"Ian Boyd" <ian.msnews010@.avatopia.com> wrote in message
news:%235qm3VU5FHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>i realize the term "clustered index" is a MS thing. i also know that the
>clustered index is the physical sort order of data in a table. And once i
>have this technique available to me, i can take advantage of it to group
>low-cardinality rows together, where an index would not be selective
>enough.
> So, with clustered indexes in SQL Server, i have another performance
> tuning option. Does Oracle, MySQL, DB2 let the user change the physical
> sort order of a table - and be able to take advantage of that for query
> optimization?
In Oracle an "Index-Organized Table" is the equivalent as a SQL Server
clustered index. There are some minor differences in implementation, for
instance, the requirement that the "clustered index" must be the primary
key. But they are pretty much the same thing.
David
|||Alexander Kuznetsov wrote:
> Oracle's Index Organized tables aka IOT are quite similar to MS SQL
> Servers clustered index.
> DB2's clustered index and its table are separate objects. The docs
> used to say that DB2 will try to maintain physical order, but there
> was no guarantee - you needed to reorganize the table periodically
> once the clustering factor dropped too low. ("clustering factor" is
> statistics present in DB2 and Oracle, but not relevant to MS SQL
> Server, because MS SQL Server uses bookmarks, not Row identifiers to
> locate a row from a non-clustered index)
MaxDB has a similar feature: *all* tables are stored the way MS SQL Server
tables with a clustered index are stored. The index used is the PK of the
table and if there is no PK then a hidden column with a synthetic value is
added and used for the PK.
Kind regards
robert

do not have permission error message

I have been trying to run a script that modifies objects in a SQL Server 2005 database. I am trying to drop an index but I am told the index does not exist or I do not have the correct permissions. An example of one of the commands in the script that I am trying to execute are as follows.

command:
DROP INDEX spices.ADAPTER_MESSAGE.ADAPTER_MESSAGE_SET;

response:
Msg 3701, Level 11, State 6, Line 1
Cannot drop the index 'spices.ADAPTER_MESSAGE.ADAPTER_MESSAGE_SET', because it does not exist or you do not have permission.

The index does exist in the table so the problem must be related to permissions. I am the one who created the database so I am the dbo. I should have permission to do anything in the database, right? So why am I getting this error when my script runs?

thanks,
shimo

The dbo should be able to drop the index.

Is it possible that you are not running as the dbo? Maybe an application role has been set or something like that.

One way to check is

select user_name() to determine your user context.

Another possiblility is that the spices table is not in dbo or your default schema.

Try using the two part name schema.spices.ADAPTER_MESSAGE.ADAPTER_MESSAGE_SET

HTH,

-Steven Gott

S/DET

SQL Server

|||

Is this a SQL x64 bit edition?

We have had similar issue and reported to MS Connect site.

sql

do indexed views slow down inserts

sql2l sp3
Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
inserts for the underlying table?
A clustered index does not have to slow down inserts. If you understand how
clustered indexes work and choose the appropriate column(s) for the index
expression it can actually speed it up and certainly can make a difference
on selects. Since an Indexed view uses a clustered index it can have the
same properties. That said an indexed view is always going to be slower on
inserts than a straight table simply because of the extra data your dealing
with. Each time you do an insert, update or delete on the underlying table
it potentially has to populate and recalculate the indexed views data. How
much depends on several factors such as the table size and definition and
the hardware setup etc. However these losses may be offset by the gains
that you can achieve on the selects against an indexed view. Again it
depends but in general they are not ideal for situations where you have lots
of inserts.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:428701c47326$2badabd0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2l sp3
> Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
> normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
> same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
> inserts for the underlying table?
sql

do indexed views slow down inserts

sql2l sp3
Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
inserts for the underlying table?A clustered index does not have to slow down inserts. If you understand how
clustered indexes work and choose the appropriate column(s) for the index
expression it can actually speed it up and certainly can make a difference
on selects. Since an Indexed view uses a clustered index it can have the
same properties. That said an indexed view is always going to be slower on
inserts than a straight table simply because of the extra data your dealing
with. Each time you do an insert, update or delete on the underlying table
it potentially has to populate and recalculate the indexed views data. How
much depends on several factors such as the table size and definition and
the hardware setup etc. However these losses may be offset by the gains
that you can achieve on the selects against an indexed view. Again it
depends but in general they are not ideal for situations where you have lots
of inserts.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:428701c47326$2badabd0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2l sp3
> Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
> normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
> same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
> inserts for the underlying table?

do indexed views slow down inserts

sql2l sp3
Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
inserts for the underlying table?A clustered index does not have to slow down inserts. If you understand how
clustered indexes work and choose the appropriate column(s) for the index
expression it can actually speed it up and certainly can make a difference
on selects. Since an Indexed view uses a clustered index it can have the
same properties. That said an indexed view is always going to be slower on
inserts than a straight table simply because of the extra data your dealing
with. Each time you do an insert, update or delete on the underlying table
it potentially has to populate and recalculate the indexed views data. How
much depends on several factors such as the table size and definition and
the hardware setup etc. However these losses may be offset by the gains
that you can achieve on the selects against an indexed view. Again it
depends but in general they are not ideal for situations where you have lots
of inserts.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"ChrisR" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:428701c47326$2badabd0$a601280a@.phx.gbl...
> sql2l sp3
> Im starting to do a bit of research on indexed views. On a
> normal table, a clustered index slows down inserts. Is the
> same true for a clustered indexed view? Will it slow down
> inserts for the underlying table?

Do foreign keys generate implicit indexes?

If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
create an implicit index on that given ID? I've been told this is
done in some databases, but i need to know for sure if SQL Server does
it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any other databses perhaps?

Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:

ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])

My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
greatly appreciated!

Bobbobdurie@.gmail.com (bobdurie@.gmail.com) writes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
create an implicit index on that given ID?

In SQL Server, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

I've been told this is done in some databases, but i need to know for
sure if SQL Server does it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any
other databses perhaps?

I seem to recall having heard this about Sybase Anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:
>
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])
>
My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
greatly appreciated!

Indeed, it is often a good idea to add indexes on foreign keys, as it
can speed up deletions considerably. And it is not uncommon to search
for data in a table on a foreign key. However, as always, you should
think twice, and not add indexes blindly. For instance, if you have a
country-code column in a address table, there is little reason to add
an index on that column, since you don't delete countries very often.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||>I've been told this is done in some databases, .. <<

Yes, but better. Sybase SQL Anywhere (nee Watcom SQL) builds links
from all the FK references to the single PRIMARY KET/UNIQUE occurence
in the referenced table. Saves space, pre-joins tables for speed and
makes DRI actions both easy and fast.

SQL Server is still thinking in terms of "table = file" instead of
"table is part of a whole schema" and that "record =row" instead of
"row is made up of columns". Stonebreaker had a recent blog on column-
oriented design over contigous storage model.|||On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:51:14 -0000, "bobdurie@.gmail.com"
<bobdurie@.gmail.comwrote:

Microsoft Access does this, when you create a relationship between two
tables.
Check with sysindexes to see if SQL Server does this too.

-Tom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
>create an implicit index on that given ID? I've been told this is
>done in some databases, but i need to know for sure if SQL Server does
>it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any other databses perhaps?
>
>Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:
>
>ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
>[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
>REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])
>
>My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
>key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
>greatly appreciated!
>
>Bob

|||Check with sysindexes to see if SQL Server does this too.

As Erland mentioned, SQL Server does not automatically index foreign key
columns. That task is left to the discretion of the DBA, who might choose
not to index the foreign column(s) due to low cardinality and static data.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"Tom van Stiphout" <no.spam.tom7744@.cox.netwrote in message
news:8qqbf3190hk4cis52502s9th2ebsjjfpd5@.4ax.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:51:14 -0000, "bobdurie@.gmail.com"
<bobdurie@.gmail.comwrote:
>
Microsoft Access does this, when you create a relationship between two
tables.
Check with sysindexes to see if SQL Server does this too.
>
-Tom.
>
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

>>If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
>>create an implicit index on that given ID? I've been told this is
>>done in some databases, but i need to know for sure if SQL Server does
>>it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any other databses perhaps?
>>
>>Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:
>>
>>ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
>>[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
>>REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])
>>
>>My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
>>key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
>>greatly appreciated!
>>
>>Bob

|||Also, analyse your query requirements then apply an Indexing Strategy

--

Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Need an IT job? http://www.ITjobfeed.com/SQL
<bobdurie@.gmail.comwrote in message
news:1190404274.471197.197240@.n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
create an implicit index on that given ID? I've been told this is
done in some databases, but i need to know for sure if SQL Server does
it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any other databses perhaps?
>
Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:
>
ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])
>
My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
greatly appreciated!
>
Bob
>

|||On Sep 24, 3:25 am, "Jack Vamvas" <DEL_TO_RE...@.del.comwrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Also, analyse your query requirements then apply an Indexing Strategy
>
--
>
Jack Vamvas
___________________________________
Need an IT job? http://www.ITjobfeed.com/SQL
>
<bobdu...@.gmail.comwrote in message
>
news:1190404274.471197.197240@.n39g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

If i create a simple table with a foreign key constraint, does it
create an implicit index on that given ID? I've been told this is
done in some databases, but i need to know for sure if SQL Server does
it. Has anyone heard of this before, on any other databses perhaps?

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Heres an example of how the foreign key constraint is being added:

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

ALTER TABLE [dbo].[administrators] WITH CHECK ADD CONSTRAINT
[FPSLUFSUOXZGAJOJ] FOREIGN KEY([AdministratorRoleID])
REFERENCES [dbo].[administratorroles] ([AdministratorRoleID])

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

My initial testing seems to indicate adding an index on the foreign
key column helps, but i need to know for sure. Any insight would be
greatly appreciated!

>

Quote:

Originally Posted by

Bob

Thanks for all the responses on this, its much appreciated!!! I also
found this article which makes me realize other people have had the
same misconceptions as me :)
http://www.sqlskills.com/blogs/kimb...yColu mns.aspx

dm_db_index_physical_stats

Is this function as well as alter index reorganazi or rebuild backward
compatible to sql2k?
Thanks,
KOni.None of the new functions, views etc from SQL2005 will run on SQL2000 since
they don't exist there.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Koni Kogan" <kkogan@.haiint.com> wrote in message
news:%23crVjos7FHA.4076@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is this function as well as alter index reorganazi or rebuild backward
> compatible to sql2k?
> Thanks,
> KOni.|||No, but if you really need it, then try scripting it from 2005 and
re-creating in the 2000 master database; it's just a function. This sounds
like it probably references system tables, which as subject to change from
one version of SQL Server to the next, so use at your own risk.
"Koni Kogan" <kkogan@.haiint.com> wrote in message
news:%23crVjos7FHA.4076@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Is this function as well as alter index reorganazi or rebuild backward
> compatible to sql2k?
> Thanks,
> KOni.