index

#1

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

#2

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#3

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#4

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#5

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#6

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#7

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#8

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#9

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.

#10

aarklon (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote:

Quote:

Hi all,

I read the following in a book

1) we can have several non clustered indexes on a table , but we can
have only one clustered index per table

2) index on the primary key can be clustered or non clustered

now my question is

1) to what extent these statements are true ?

To the extent the statements accurately describe the physical
implementation of a particular dbms, they are true.

Theoretically, one can have multiple clustered indexes at the cost of
duplicating the data, which of course incurs a cost. Vendors typically
assUme nobody would ever want to incur that cost.