No direct access to data row in clustered table - why?
[11] tells:
"In a nonclustered index, the leaf level does not contain all the data. In addition to the key values, each index row in the leaf level (the lowest level of the tree) contains a bookmark that tells SQL Server where to find the data row corresponding to the key in the index.
A bookmark can take one of two forms. If the table has a clustered index, the bookmark is the clustered index key for the corresponding data row . If the table is a heap (in other words, it has no clustered index), the bookmark is a row identifier (RID), which is an actual row locator in the form File#:Page#:Slot#."
Is this a copy of clustered index key or nonclustered index has a pointer to it?
Should all clustered index structure, i.e. b-tree with intermediate data, be traversed to get to row data through non-clustered index bookmark on clustered table?
What does clustered index indtroduce that direct referencing become impossible?
Update:
Let me re-phrase the question. How this is done I can read myself but I want to understand why it is done this way.Would not it be much more efficient to continue referencing row data by RID from non-clustered index having (added) clustered one?
Suppose a table has only non-clustered index(es) (but no clustered index).
Non-clustered index leaves contains RID to real data. For direct access of row data without any need of lookup/traversals.Adding clustered index means elimination of IAM (Index Allocation Map) pages and substituting all RIDs of all non-clustered indexes by clustered index keys + necessity of additional lookup instead of direct access.
What is the point in this?Update2:
Was my question downvoted by Microsoft himself? Thanks again, this is an honor. It is pointless to downvote without explaining.Update3:
@PerformanceDB", I could not understand the phrase in your answer:""It also means the B-Tree is reduced by one level in index height (which is why they are tiny if you inspected them)."
Can you explain it?
Yes, I'd like illustrations.
I started to read: Debunking myths about clustered indexes - part 4 (CIXs, TPC-C & Oracle clusters) and it, as many other sources, explicitly refer to the fact that SQL Server, in contrat to Oracle, lacks direct access features on a clustered table.
Update4 (Update5 - corrected by strike-out):
A few answerers referred to the fact that a bookmark CI key in NCI leaf is for address independence in case of page splits.Aren't during index reorganization or de-fragmenting in non-clustered table with CI NCI (non-clustered index) the rows relocated and corresponding RIDs in NCI change in NCI are modified?
This seems to me as addressing scheme deficiency - the row should have moved with its address, should have not it?
Also, Is heap completely immune to开发者_Go百科 page splits? due to size increase of variable size data types in rowRelated questions:
- What do I miss in understanding the clustered index?
- Why/when/how is whole clustered index scan chosen rather than full table scan?
- Reasons not to have a clustered index in SQL Server 2005
Cited:
[11] Inside Microsoft® SQL Server™ 2005: The Storage Engine By Kalen Delaney - (Solid Quality Learning) ............................................... Publisher: Microsoft Press Pub Date: October 11, 2006 Print ISBN-10: 0-7356-2105-5 Print ISBN-13: 978-0-7356-2105-3 Pages: 464[11a] p.250 Section Index organization from Chapter 7. Index Internals and Management
Here is helpful online copypaste from it
http://sqlserverindexeorgnization.blogspot.com/though without any credits to source
The problem is that the doco is gobbledegook, and increases the very confusion it is alleging it clarifies. If you forget about all that and start again, it is actually quite straight-forward. Since you are inquiring re data storage structures, and concerned re performance, let's look at that perspective (not the logical). There is no data storage structure caled "Table".
Heap
Data pages containing rows. There is no Clustered Index. The rows are not shifted as a result of Inserts/Deletes. The rows can be read in entirety (table scan) or singly (via a NonClustered Index). It gets badly fragmented.
Clustered Index
B-Tree. The Index is Clustered with the Data Rows. The leaf level is the data row. That means one less I/O on every access. It also means the B-Tree is reduced by one level in index height (which is why they are tiny if you inspected them). The Heap (entire data storage stucture) is eliminated. There are no pointers. The rows are maintained in Clustered Index Key order (rows are moved on the page as a result of Insert/Delete/Expand). Pages are trimmed within the extents.
NonClustered Index
B-Tree. Full height as required by number of rows.
Where there is a Clustered Index, the Leaf level is the Clustered Index Key (so that it can go to the exact location in the CI, which is the row).
Where there is no Clustered Index, the Leaf level is a pointer: File:Page:Offset (so that it can go to the Heap, and get the row). The RowIds in the Heap do not change (if they did, every time you Inserted/Deleted one row, you would have to update all the NCI entries in all associated NCIs, for all other rows on the page).
That is why, when you create a CI, all NCIs are automatically rebuilt (they have to be switched from [2] to 1). Obviously, always create the CI before the NCIs.
There is no File:Page:Slot, the row length is variable, it is Offset within Page.
There is no Bookmark or other goobledegook.
Re "No direct access to data row in clustered table - why"
Nonsense. You have direct and immediate access to each data row, via the CI (one less I/O) or the NCI⇢CI Key.
This is very fast, invented by Britton Lee; re-implemented and patented by Sybase; obtained by dishonesty and for a pittance by Darth Vader.
If you need further clarification, I can provide illustrations.
Responses to Comments
"It also means the B-Tree is reduced by one level in index height (which is why they are tiny if you inspected them)."
Let's say you have a tables with 1 billion rows. The "height" of the B-Tree of any given index (eg. Unique, on PK) drawn vertically is say 8; or you can say the index is 8 levels deep, between the top (a single entry) and the bottom, the leaf level. the leaf level is of course the widest, and most polpulated; it will have 1 billion entries. Given that each index page contains say 256 entries, the leaf-minus-one level contains 390K entries.
The CI B-tree (index only portion) will contain 7 levels, 390K entries, taking 10MB; because the leaf level IS the data row (of which there are 1 billion entries, spread nicely across 100GB), and is thus excluded, or not repeated.
Yes, I'd like illustrations.
Ok. I have a set of finished Sybase docs; I have butchered one for you, so as to avoid confusion, and excluded the bits that Sybase has, that MS does not. Sorry. Don't follow the links, just stay on the one page. Also the very low levels of Fragmentation in the heap are different by the fragmentation in the Heap is massive, in both Sybase and MS, so I have left that intact.
Data Storage Basics
(That is a condensed version of my much more elaborate Sybase diagrams, which I have butchered for the MS context. There is a link at the bottom of that doc, if you want the full Sybase set.)
"I started to read: Debunking myths about clustered indexes - part 4 (CIXs, TPC-C & Oracle clusters) and it, as many other sources, explicitly refer to the fact that SQL Server, in contrat to Oracle, lacks direct access features on a clustered table."
Be careful what you read, the web is full of superficial information; half truths discussed out of context; misinformation (from vendiors as well as well-meaning ignorants). As you notice, I just answer questions; I do not waste time answering points raised in references.
Just think about this. Well-implemented Tables with a CI do not need de-fragmentation; and when implemented badly, need infrequent de-fragmentation; tables without a CI need frequent and pretty much offline de-fragmentation. That's your maintenance window running into Monday morning. Just an example of why discussing items in isolation is actually misinformation. Which is why my docs are all linked and related to one another.
"A few answerers referred to the fact that CI key in NCI leaf is for address independence in case of page splits."
Yes, I just would not put it that way, that's as confusing as the first reference you posted. Page splits have nothing to do with it. I put is the way I did in my post above on purpose, for clarity. Since the rows move (the CI keeps the pages and Extents trim), the NCI MUST have the CI key, in order to find the row. It can't use a RowId which would keep changing all the time. Unless you have wide CI keys, this is no big deal; a 4-byte RowId (plus processing overhead) vs an 8-byte CI key (minus said overhead) ... who cares (ok, maybe you). Address the higher level issues, and the low level issues will be small enough to not warrant address. Squeezing out 1% performance improvement at the low level when your db is fragmented and unnormalised, is amore than a bit silly.
A system in an integrated set of components, none can be changed or evaluated in isolation. A bunch of components that are not integrated are dis-integrated, not a system. At your level of questioning, you are not yet in a position to form conclusions, or have grudges against this or that, if you do, they are premature conclusions and grudges, that will impede your progress. On top of that, there is a big difference between knowledge gained by question-and-answer vs knowledge gained by reading plus experience.
"Aren't during undex reotganization or defragmanting of non-clustered table with CI the rows relocated and corresponding RIDs in NCI change in NCI?"
Do you mean "non-clustered INDEX with CI" ? Well the NCIs are not worth de-fragmenting, just drop/create them.
Or do you mean "de-fragmenting a CI [whole table]" ? I have already posted, when you re-create the CI (or de-fragment it in place), the NCIs are automatically rebuilt. It is not about RowIds, it is about the change: when you drop the CI, the NCIs have to be rewritten from CI keys to RowIds; when you create the CI, the NCIs have to the changed back to CI Keys. Switched on DBAs drop the NCI before dropping the CI.
"This seems to me as addressing scheme deficiency - the row should have moved with its address, should have not it?" You're getting too low-level without understanding the higher levels. If the row moves, its address changes; if the address changes, the row moves. Either you have a CI (rows move) xor you have a Heap (rows do not move).
"Also, Is heap completely immune to page splits?"
No. Page Splits still happen when variable length rows expand and there is no room on the page. But in the scheme of things, massive fragmentation on Heaps, due to never moving rows, due to it being RowId based (which the NCIs rely on), this is a small item.
Let me re-phrase the question. How this is done I can read myself but I want to understand why it is done this way.
Would not it be much more efficient to continue referencing row data by RID from non-clustered index having (added) clustered one?
NO ! If a table has an insert, and a page split occurs, then you would have to potentially update a lot of references that use a RID to point to the new locations of those data rows that have been moved to a new page in SQL Server. That's exactly why the SQL Server team chose to use the clustering key instead, as the "data pointer", so to speak. The value of the clustering key does not change when a page split occurs, so no update to indices are needed.
Would not it be much more efficient to continue referencing row data by RID from non-clustered index having (added) clustered one?
The whole point of a clustered index is that the records are accessed via a logical locator (which is not normally meant to change), not physical.
If the indexes were pointing to a physical RID and a row changed its physical location (say from a page split), all indexes would need to be updated too.
It's exactly the kind of problem the clustered indexes were invented to deal with.
If a table has a clustered index, each non-clustered index row contains a copy of the clustered index key.
If a table does not have a clustered index, i.e. the table is a heap, each non-clustered index row contains a pointer built from the file identifier (ID), page number, and number of the row on the page. The whole pointer is known as a Row ID (RID).
When you identify (select) a row using a clustered index, you have all the columns from the row. When you identify a row in a non-clustered index, you need to perfrom another lookup step to obtain the columns not included in the non-clustered index.
Would not it be much more efficient to continue referencing row data by RID from non-clustered index having (added) clustered one?
In many cases it would be more efficient, yes. I believe that clustered indexes were originally implemented that way (in version 6.0?). Presumably they were changed for the reasons that marc_s mentioned, which make sense if your clustered index is such that it has a lot of page splits.
I would not have posted this (my) question, have I seen before my posting here that answer by AlexSmith there, which I saw just a few minutes after posting and having been already answered here:
- "Greg Linwood wrote a great series of blogs. It is a must read: Debunking myths about clustered indexes"
It is pity, it is impossible to accept it there as an answer here
Update:
The accepted here answer by PerformanceDBA told: "The problem is that the doco is gobbledegook, and increases the very confusion it is alleging it clarifies"
Well, all msdn docs tell and show, for ex., cf. pictures from Clustered Index Structures vs. "Heap Structures" that clustered table does not have IAM page. Meanwhile, the output from following the code from Inside the Storage Engine: Using DBCC PAGE and DBCC IND to find out if page splits ever roll back shows the opposite.
Having no desire to continue spamming here I shifted my questioning and participation to /www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums
My related question there:
- Does clustered table have IAM page?
加载中,请稍侯......
精彩评论