Clustered Index Vs Reverse Index

I am searching against a column of table (4 mil rows) which has a datatype varchar(19), what index is recommended clustered or reverse index
any thoughts on this would help
Thanks

Reverse indexes are used for write performance.
If you insert a lot of rows quickly and you use an incrementing value as the index key, typically a sequence, then your insert performance will benefit.
An index is simply ordered data, so if you need to insert into the index
9567843
9567844
9567845
9567846
9567847
9567848
They will all write to the same block.
Whereas with
3487659
4487659
5487659
6487659
7487659
8487659
they will not as there are big gaps in the index values.
If anything flipping the value back may have some overhead, so read performance could be very slightly degraded, but I must emphasize that this is untested speculation.

Similar Messages

What is RID in non clustered index and its use

Hi All,
I need help regarding following articles on sql server
1) what is RID in non clustered index and its use.
2) What is Physical and virtual address space. Difference in 32 bit vs 64 bit Virtual address space
Regards
Rahul

Next time Please ask single question in a thread you will get better response.
1. RID is location of heap. When you create Non clustered index on heap and
lookup happens to get extra records RID is used to locate the records. RID is basically Row ID. This is basic definition for you. Please read
this Thread for more details
2. I have not heard of Physical address space. I Know Virtual address space( VAS)
VAS is simple terms is amount of memory( virtual ) 'visible' to a process, a process can be SQL Server process or windows process. It theoretically depends on architecture of Operating System. 32 bit OS will have maximum range of 4 G VAS, it's calculated
like a process ruining on 32 bit system can address max up to 2^32 locations ( which is equivalent to 4 G). Similarly for 64 bit max VAS will be 2^64 which is theoretically infinite. To make things feasible maximum VAS for 64 bit system is kept to 8 TB. Now
VAS acts as layer of abstraction an intermediate .Instead of all request directly mapping to physical memory it first maps to VAS and then mapped to physical memory so that it can manage request for memory in more coordinated fashion than allowing process
to do it ,if not it will soon cause memory crunch.Any process when created on windows will see virtual memory according to its VAS limit.
Please read
This Article for detailed information
Please mark this reply as answer if it solved your issue or vote as helpful if it helped so that other forum members can benefit from it
My Technet Wiki Article
MVP

Space occupied by clustered index Vs non-clustered index

I am trying to understand the indexes. Does clustered index occupy more space than a non-clustered index because it carries the information about rest of the other columns also. Could you guys please help me understand this. Thanks in advance.
svk

Hi czarvk,
Clustered index in SQL Server takes up more space than non-clustered indexes.
Clustered index arranges the way records are stored in a table putting them in order (key, value), all the data are sorted on the values of the index.
A non-clustered index is a completely different object in a table, containing only a subset of columns and a row locator to the table’s rows or to the clustered index’s key.
So clustered index in SQL Server takes up more space than non-clustered indexes.
If you have any question, please feel free to let me know.
Regards,
Donghui Li

Non Clustered Indexing not working for SQL server 2005

I have create two non clustered index on two particular tables. Now the problem is its working fine..but after restarting my server its working stop and then again I have to delete that index and recreate it.

try these links
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2009/02/07/sql-server-introduction-to-force-index-query-hints-index-hint/
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2009/02/08/sql-server-introduction-to-force-index-query-hints-index-hint-part2/
http://www.brentozar.com/archive/2013/10/index-hints-helpful-or-harmful/
Hope it Helps!!

How to create clustered index in Oracle ?

I need to Create unique clustered index idx_col1 on table1(col1) in Oracle 9i.
Should I declare it at creation of table as index-organized ? My table is created with the code like Create table table1 as select ..... from ....
Can anybody post an example ?
Thanks

Oracle does not have the concept of a clustered index from SQL Server. You may get something similar if you create your table as an index organized table, i.e.
CREATE TABLE my_iot (
col1 number primary key,
col2 number
organization index;or you may get similar benefits by creating a cluster. It really depends on what functionality you're trying to replicate and what problem your trying to solve. Either way, though, you'll have to have separate steps to create the table and then to insert the data.
Justin

SQL Server 2014 Bug - with Clustered Index On Temp Table with Identity Column

Hi,
Here's a stored procedure. (It could be shorter, but this will show the problem.)
CREATE PROCEDURE dbo.SGTEST_TBD_20141030 AS
IF OBJECT_ID('TempDB..#Temp') IS NOT NULL
DROP TABLE #Temp
CREATE TABLE #Temp
Col1 INT NULL
,Col2 INT IDENTITY NOT NULL
,Col3 INT NOT NULL
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX ix_cl ON #Temp(Col2)
SET IDENTITY_INSERT #Temp ON;
RAISERROR('Preparing to INSERT INTO #Temp...',0,1) WITH NOWAIT;
INSERT INTO #Temp (Col1, Col2, Col3)
SELECT 1,2,3
RAISERROR('Insert Success!!!',0,1) WITH NOWAIT;
SET IDENTITY_INSERT #Temp OFF;
In SQL Server 2014, If I execute this (EXEC dbo.SGTEST_TBD_20141030) It works. If I execute it a second time - It fails hard with:
Msg 0, Level 11, State 0, Line 0
A severe error occurred on the current command. The results, if any, should be discarded.
Msg 0, Level 20, State 0, Line 0
A severe error occurred on the current command. The results, if any, should be discarded.
In SQL Server 2012, I can execute it over and over, with no problem. I've discovered two work-a-rounds:
1) Add "WITH RECOMPILE" to the SP CREATE/ALTER statement, or
2) Declare the cluster index in the TABLE CREATE statement, e.g. ",UNIQUE CLUSTERED (COL2)"
This second option only works though, if the column is unique. I've opted for the "WITH RECOMPILE" for now. But, thought I should share.

Hi,
I did not get any error Message:
CREATE TABLE #Temp
Col1 INT NULL
,Col2 INT IDENTITY NOT NULL
,Col3 INT NOT NULL
CREATE CLUSTERED INDEX ix_cl ON #Temp(Col2)
SET IDENTITY_INSERT #Temp ON;
RAISERROR('Preparing to INSERT INTO #Temp...',0,1) WITH NOWAIT;
INSERT INTO #Temp (Col1, Col2, Col3)
SELECT 1,2,3
RAISERROR('Insert Success!!!',0,1) WITH NOWAIT;
SET IDENTITY_INSERT #Temp OFF;
SELECT * FROM #Temp
OUTPUT:
Col1 Col2
Col3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
Select @@version
--Microsoft SQL Server 2012 (SP1) - 11.0.3000.0 (X64)
Oct 19 2012 13:38:57
Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation
Enterprise Edition (64-bit) on Windows NT 6.1 <X64> (Build 7601: Service Pack 1)
Thanks Shiven:) If Answer is Helpful, Please Vote

Transactional Replication: Non-Clustered Indexes not copying.

Hello,
I set up replication on our servers at work to streamline some procedures we run daily/weekly on them.
This copies around 15 articles from two databases on the "Master" server to another server used for execution purposes. For the most part it was a pretty straight forward task and it seemed to work nicely; but I realised after some investigation that the
non-clustered indexes weren't copying over to the child server.
I set the non-clustered indexes property in the properties of the publishing articles to "True" and generated a new snapshot, this seemed to work, but I've come into work this morning to find the property has reset to "False" and I have no indexes on the
table again. Why is this happening and is there any way I can resolve the matter so the indexes are copied over concurrently?
Thanks in advance for your advice.
JB

I actually solved this.
You can use a post-replication SQL script to create the indexes. Whatever articles you're publishing open up the indexes drop down list of the article in object explorer, right-click on an index and hover over Script Index as, then Create-to, then click
New Query Window editor.
Up will pop up a new query window with the resulting index. Work your way through all the indexes on all the articles of the publication, copy and pasting just the create index line and below of each script, pull them all together into one query window.
Once you're done find a safe folder somewhere on your harddrive and save the SQL query as an .sql file with a sensible name.
Right click on the publication and goto properties. Click on the "Snapshot" tab, in there; there should be a section saying "Run additional scripts". Choose the browse button next to "After applying the Snapshot; execute this script:"
Navigate to your script file and choose it. Once done click ok and it'll prompt you that something has changed and if you'd like to generate a new snapshot, make sure you do or it won't work.
That's it, you'll find once the publication has bulk copied over the the subscriptions successfully there are non clustered indexes on the tables. Pretty simple!

Transactional Replication Not replicating non-clustered Indexes

Hi
I have created a transactional replication.I am sure that I have configured it to replicate Non-Clustered indexes,
but It does not do so.
I tried several times to reinitialize the subscription,but still no luck.
Regards

It is True for sure.
But the problem is solved.I had to wait until the Initialize process get completed.
But I am sure that this problem happened before.Sometimes it works fine but sometimes not.
Hi ArashMasroor,
According to your description, it seems that you encounter the issue that non-clustered indexes property is reset to “False” sometimes.
To work around this issue, you can use a post-replication SQL script to create the indexes. Whatever articles you’re publishing open up the indexes drop down list of the article in object explorer, right-click on an index and levitate over Script Index as,
then Create-to, then click New Query Window editor.
Up will pop up a new query window with the resulting index. Work your way through all the indexes on all the articles of the publication, copy and pasting just the create index line and below of each script, pull them all together into one query window.
Once you’re done find a safe folder somewhere on your hard drive and save the SQL query as an .sql file with a sensible name. Then you can execute this script after applying the Snapshot. For more details, please review this
blog.
There is also a similar thread for your reference.
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/sqlserver/en-US/b0f3870d-1a65-4384-a17b-96825ec5f098/transactional-replication-nonclustered-indexes-not-copying?forum=sqlreplication
Thanks,
Lydia Zhang
Lydia Zhang
TechNet Community Support

Creating a Primary Key in SSMS without Also Creating a Clustered Index

In the course of development (SQL Server Express 2012) I’m creating various tables which should not have a clustered index on the primary key. However, it seems as if SSMS is obsessed with always doing so. I cannot seem to find a way through the simple
“right click on column and select "Set Primary Key" method to stop the creation of an associated clustered index.
I can work around it fairly easily by having SSMS generate the necessary script and then changing CLUSTERED to NONCLUSTERED, but I’m curious if there is a way to do it purely using the UI that I’m overlooking…

To be honest, though, until I get much closer to production and have loaded a lot more data I won't know for sure one way or the other - this was more of an awareness question from my part and something that I could not find anyone ever asking on
the web.
To add to what David said, the performance impact in the end depends much on the size of the table size and amount of memory available to SQL Server. All things being equal, performance will be roughly the same with both sequential and random keys
as long as data are memory resident. But a random key greatly reduces the likelihood need data will be in memory.
The worst case scenario for single-row selects is an even distribution of random key values, a very large table, and little SQL Server memory. Nearly every select query will require a physical I/O in this case. Since each spinning-media disk
spindle is capable of only 150-200 IOPS so your throughput will be constrained accordingly.
A big advantage of sequential key values for single-row selects is improved temporal reference locality. In practice, the most recently inserted/accessed rows are most likely to be subsequently queried. A single-row query will not only
read the requested row, but the adjacent rows on the same page as well, thus avoiding costly I/O for a select of those rows.
See http://www.dbdelta.com/improving-uniqueidentifier-performance/ for an example of how to generate sequential GUIDs from C# code.
Dan Guzman, SQL Server MVP, http://www.dbdelta.com

Compression on table and on clustered index

Hi all,
if I had a table with a clustered index on it, is it the same to rebuild the table with compression and rebuild the clustered index with compression?
Is this
ALTER TABLE dbo.TABLE_001 REBUILD PARTITION = ALL WITH (DATA_COMPRESSION = ROW, ONLINE=ON)
Equivalent to this?
ALTER INDEX PK_TABLE_001 ON dbo.TABLE_001 REBUILD WITH (DATA_COMPRESSION=ROW, ONLINE=ON)
where PK_TABLE_001 is the clustered index of the table TABLE_001

Andrea,
Cluster index is table itself organized according to clustering key value. So if you apply compression on CI means internally table would be compressed and because cluster index includes all columsn of the table so complete table would be compressed.
Please mark this reply as answer if it solved your issue or vote as helpful if it helped so that other forum members can benefit from it
My Technet Wiki Article
MVP

Clustered indexes and deadlocks

Hi,
I have run into some problem with clustered indexes and deadlocks. I have found some breadcrumbs about this on the web but didn't really understand everything. I am an DBA by accident and mainly BI and DWH developer. The article most relevant to the problem
seems to be the following:
SQL Server Deadlocks Caused By Clustered Index Scan .
The database is running with READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT Transaction Isolation Level. Problematic seems to be the second query. First a row is inserted into table SubjectRevisionEntity. Second a row is inserted into table Partner which has a foreign key
on SubjectRevisionEntity. This foreign key is validated using a Clustered Index Seek.
Having done some research on the topic using the internet my hypothesis is as follows:
- Insert from Query 1 in Session 1 locks page in Table SubjectRevisionEntity
- Now a new session (Session 2) is started. Insert from Query 1 in Session 2 probably locks the same page in Table SubjectRevisionEntity.
- Insert from Query 2 in Session 1 locks page in Table Partner
Lock on page in Table SubjectRevisionEntity is necessary to do the Clustered Index Seek. However this page is already locked by Session 2. However, Session 2 needs to lock page in Table Partner which is already locked by Session 1 --> deadlock
occurs
Does this make any sense? At the moment I am not having the means to test the hypothesis but I will look after that.
I am just thinking about countermeasures to undertake. What about configuring the index to avoid page locks? All other queries seem to be fine I suppose as they operate on only one table. My fellows from software engineering favour to replace clustered indexes
by nonclustered indexes as the already have done in the past. However, I think the disadvantages of nonclustered indexes aka heaps regarding storage (forwarded records) and query performance are much bigger than their use for problems like these.
Regarding the
article I did not understand the author's point, that two simultaneous table scans on one table by two sessions won't work. I thought that this is no problem as the sessions would use a shared lock on the table.
Thank you very much for sharing your expertise in advance!
Martin

As you describe this that cannot be the cause of your deadlock.
After session 1 executes query 1, it will have an IX (Intent Exclusive) lock on the clustered index of table SubjectRevisionEntity (note that a lock on a clustered index is a lock on the table since the table is contained in the clustered index), also an
IX lock on the page in the index where the new row will be inserted and an X (exclusive) lock on the key that you just inserted.
When session 2 executes it also needs an IX lock on the clustered index of table SubjectRevisionEntity, this is allowed because multiple sessions can have IX locks on the same resource at the same time, also an IX lock on the page in the index where the
new row will be inserted (also allowed even if this entry is in the same page as the row inserted by session 1), and an X lock on the key that session 2 inserted. This is also allowed UNLESS session 2 and session 1 are trying to insert a row with the
SAME primary key value. From your description, I gather that session 1 and session 2 are trying to insert different keys.
Then session 1 attempts to insert a row in Partner which has a foreign key reference to the row in SubjectRevisionEntity. That means it must check for the existence of the row that session 1 inserted. But it can do this because all it needs is
a S (shared) lock on the SubjectRevisionEntity table, and an S lock on the page. It that get those even though session 2 has an IX lock on those resources because S locks and IX locks are compatible. It also needs an S lock on the row in SubjectRevisionEntity.
That is no problem unless it is trying to reference the row which session 2 just entered. (Once again, I assume this is not the case in your situation?) It then inserts the row in Partner getting an IX lock on the Partner table, an IX lock on the
page and an X lock on the new key in Partner.
Then session 2 attempts to insert a row in Partner. That will work unless either it is inserting a row in Partner with the same primary key as the row inserted by session 1 or it is trying to reference the same row in SubjectRevisionEntity that session
1 inserted.
So this cannot be the cause of your deadlock unless both sessions are entering the same key values. The fact that they may both be entering keys on the same page should not be causing you deadlock problems.
Regarding your question about why 2 table scans of the entire table (or entire clustered index scan if the table has a clustered index), you are correct, the scans do get shared locks and there is no deadlock problem UNLESS both sessions are holding locks
that are incompatible with S locks. For example, if you were in read committed mode and session 1 had inserted a row with clustered index key = 47 and session 2 had inserted a row with clustered index key = 23 and and both sessions attempt to do a complete
clustered index scan (by, for example, by doing something like SELECT <blah blah> FROM <table> WHERE <some nonindexed column> = 0, then both sessions will try to get S locks on every row so session 1 will be stopped at key = 23 and session
2 will be stopped at key = 47 and that is a deadlock. BUT
You are using READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT, not READ COMMITTED. In READ COMMITTED SNAPSHOT, writes do not block reads. So the situation above does not apply to you since neither of the sessions would be blocked because it was attempting to read a
row which was locked by an update from another session.
Tom

Deadlock when updating different rows on a single table with one clustered index

Deadlock when updating different rows on a single table with one clustered index. Can anyone explain why?
<event name="xml_deadlock_report" package="sqlserver" timestamp="2014-07-30T06:12:17.839Z">
<data name="xml_report">
<value>
<deadlock>
<victim-list>
<victimProcess id="process1209f498" />
</victim-list>
<process-list>
<process id="process1209f498" taskpriority="0" logused="1260" waitresource="KEY: 8:72057654588604416 (8ceb12026762)" waittime="1396" ownerId="1145783115" transactionname="implicit_transaction"
lasttranstarted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.430" XDES="0x3a2daa538" lockMode="X" schedulerid="46" kpid="7868" status="suspended" spid="262" sbid="0" ecid="0" priority="0"
trancount="2" lastbatchstarted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.440" lastbatchcompleted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.437" lastattention="1900-01-01T00:00:00.437" clientapp="Internet Information Services" hostname="CHTWEB-CH2-11P"
hostpid="12776" loginname="chatuser" isolationlevel="read uncommitted (1)" xactid="1145783115" currentdb="8" lockTimeout="4294967295" clientoption1="671088672" clientoption2="128058">
<inputbuf>
UPDATE analyst_monitor SET cam_status = N'4', cam_event_data = N'sales1', cam_event_time = current_timestamp , cam_modified_time = current_timestamp , cam_room = '' WHERE cam_analyst_name=N'ABCD' AND cam_window= 2 </inputbuf>
</process>
<process id="process9cba188" taskpriority="0" logused="2084" waitresource="KEY: 8:72057654588604416 (2280b457674a)" waittime="1397" ownerId="1145783104" transactionname="implicit_transaction"
lasttranstarted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.427" XDES="0x909616d28" lockMode="X" schedulerid="23" kpid="8704" status="suspended" spid="155" sbid="0" ecid="0" priority="0"
trancount="2" lastbatchstarted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.440" lastbatchcompleted="2014-07-30T02:12:16.437" lastattention="1900-01-01T00:00:00.437" clientapp="Internet Information Services" hostname="CHTWEB-CH2-11P"
hostpid="12776" loginname="chatuser" isolationlevel="read uncommitted (1)" xactid="1145783104" currentdb="8" lockTimeout="4294967295" clientoption1="671088672" clientoption2="128058">
<inputbuf>
UPDATE analyst_monitor SET cam_status = N'4', cam_event_data = N'sales2', cam_event_time = current_timestamp , cam_modified_time = current_timestamp , cam_room = '' WHERE cam_analyst_name=N'12345' AND cam_window= 1 </inputbuf>
</process>
</process-list>
<resource-list>
<keylock hobtid="72057654588604416" dbid="8" objectname="CHAT.dbo.analyst_monitor" indexname="IX_Clust_scam_an_name_window" id="lock4befe1100" mode="X" associatedObjectId="72057654588604416">
<owner-list>
<owner id="process9cba188" mode="X" />
</owner-list>
<waiter-list>
<waiter id="process1209f498" mode="X" requestType="wait" />
</waiter-list>
</keylock>
<keylock hobtid="72057654588604416" dbid="8" objectname="CHAT.dbo.analyst_monitor" indexname="IX_Clust_scam_an_name_window" id="lock18ee1ab00" mode="X" associatedObjectId="72057654588604416">
<owner-list>
<owner id="process1209f498" mode="X" />
</owner-list>
<waiter-list>
<waiter id="process9cba188" mode="X" requestType="wait" />
</waiter-list>
</keylock>
</resource-list>
</deadlock>
</value>
</data>
</event>

To be honest, I don't think the transaction is necessary, but the developers put it there anyway. The select statement will put the result cam_status
into a variable, and then depends on its value, it will decide whether to execute the second update statement or not. I still can't upload the screen-shot, because it says it needs to verify my account at first. No clue at all. But it is very simple, just
like:
Clustered Index Update
[analyst_monitor].[IX_Clust_scam_an_name_window]
cost: 100%
By the way, for some reason, I can't find the object based on the associatedObjectId listed in the XML
<keylock hobtid="72057654588604416" dbid="8" objectname="CHAT.dbo.analyst_monitor"
indexname="IX_Clust_scam_an_name_window" id="lock4befe1100" mode="X" associatedObjectId="72057654588604416">
For example:
SELECT * FROM sys.partition WHERE hobt_id = 72057654588604416
This return nothing. Not sure why.

Clustered indexes

Hi,
Could anyone throw some light on how exactly the clustered indexes function in Oracle?
Is it that as soon as we create an index, it is a clustered index by default..?
e,.g create index idx1 on EMP (empno);
so idx1 is a clustered index here.
Many Thanks.
Haribol
Krsna

Hi,
A cluster is a schema object that contains data from one or more tables, all of which have one or more columns in common. Oracle Database stores together all the rows from all the tables that share the same cluster key.
You can create a cluster index on a cluster.
CREATE INDEX idx1 ON CLUSTER scott_clst;
Check this link for more information.
http://download-uk.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b10759/statements_5001.htm
Thanks

How do I set access 2002 Upsizing Wizard to create clustered-index on SQL 2005

Here is an extract from the Acc2Sql2.doc >>
By default, the Upsizing Wizard
transfers all indexes as nonclustered indexes. You can modify the Upsizing
Wizard to transfer the primary key index to a clustered index. To make this
change, start Microsoft Access and open the upsizing wizard library database.
For Microsoft Access 95, the filename is Wzcs.mda. For Microsoft Access 97, the
filename is Wzcs97.mda. When the database is open, click the Modules tab and open the
UT_ModUserConstants module. Search down to the UT_CLUSTERED constant. Change
the default value from False to True.
<<< end quote
Question: I am using ACCESS 2002 upsize wizard, I searched my computer for *.mda and could not find any wzcs*.mda. How do I set it so that it creates clustered-index instead of non-clustered-index?

Hi,
This question is not related to the forum. This is a question regarding MS-ACCESS.
[Personal Site] [Blog] [Facebook]

Unable to rebuilding clustered index in SQL Azure

Hi,
I'm trying to rebuild a clustered index in SQL Azure. The table is quite large, and I'm attempting an offline rebuild using:
ALTER INDEX PK_Asset ON dbo.Asset
REBUILD
Unfortunately, I'm unable to complete this operation because the operation fails with a timeout. I've tried it several times, but with no success.
The index fragmentation is estimated to be around 85%, so I'm quite keen to reduce this.
Does anyone have any tips for getting around this in SQL Azure?
Thanks,
Nick

I believe you must be getting these error messages while tyring this operation:
Msg 40552, Level 20, State 1, Line 1
The session has been terminated because of excessive transaction log space usage. Try modifying fewer rows in a single transaction.
Msg 0, Level 20, State 0, Line 0
A severe error occurred on the current command. The results, if any, should be discarded.
Creating, rebuilding and dropping indexes could generate a lot of transaction log records and may hit this error msg on larger tables. You may be able to work around the issue by creating a new table with the desired index layout, and then move the data
in smaller chunks over to the new table. However in most cases, you can minimize transaction log space usage with index operations by using the ONLINE option with your statement. Specifying the ONLINE=ON with CREATE, ALTER and DROP INDEX operations change
the characteristics of the execution. Instead of a single large transaction, the operation is performed in multiple shorter transactions in the background without holding exclusive locks for extended periods of time on the rows. This both improves concurrency
during the execution of the operation, and it eases the transaction log space requirement for the operation. This can help you avoid the 40552 exception.
PS: The rebuild command using the ONOINE=ON may also fail if you have BLOB datatype colume (datatype like ttext, image, varchar(max), nvarchar(max), varbinary(max), xml, or large CLR type).
HTH,
Thanks and regards,
__Raman
Raman Sharma - MSFT Microsoft

How to create clustered index?

When working with Relational model I do not see how to make index clustered? All indexes (as well as primary keys) are created non clustered so far...

In an Oracle Physical Model, you can create a Cluster and create an Index on that ClusterI am designing for SQL Server, not for Oracle. So Oracle specific approaches would not help me.
Even for the Oracle (which I do not know much but I can guess) I think that this is not what I was asking for. I simply need to create a clustered index, not to include column into some cluster. In other words I need that generated DDL looks like
create clustered index...
Now it always looks like
create nonclustered index...

Clustered Index Vs Reverse Index

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for