<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: SQL SERVER &#8211; Index Seek Vs. Index Scan (Table Scan)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/</link>
	<description>Notes of a SQL Server MVP and Database Administrator</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:54:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tim</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-57390</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:22:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-57390</guid>
		<description>This is a wonderful topic and I&#039;m glad I found it as it&#039;s the exact answer to a quest that I had about a table today. It helped reduce my query time from 14 seconds to less than 1! 

Great work!
Tim</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a wonderful topic and I&#8217;m glad I found it as it&#8217;s the exact answer to a quest that I had about a table today. It helped reduce my query time from 14 seconds to less than 1! </p>
<p>Great work!<br />
Tim</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-56957</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 17:59:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-56957</guid>
		<description>Pinal,

An Index Scan is not the same as a table scan.  A &quot;CLUSTERED&quot; index scan is the same as a table scan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pinal,</p>
<p>An Index Scan is not the same as a table scan.  A &#8220;CLUSTERED&#8221; index scan is the same as a table scan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amel Music</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-53549</link>
		<dc:creator>Amel Music</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-53549</guid>
		<description>There is some difference between Index scan and Table scan, that is, when we have index scan sql engine locks only PK not whole ROW, and because of that is faster than table scan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is some difference between Index scan and Table scan, that is, when we have index scan sql engine locks only PK not whole ROW, and because of that is faster than table scan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: josei</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-53194</link>
		<dc:creator>josei</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:27:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-53194</guid>
		<description>i have a query the where clause which is convered in non-clustered index and partial non-key column which is convered in the non-clustered index as well. But the execution plan show me the clustered index scan = 98 %, can i have any solution to tunning this scenerio ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i have a query the where clause which is convered in non-clustered index and partial non-key column which is convered in the non-clustered index as well. But the execution plan show me the clustered index scan = 98 %, can i have any solution to tunning this scenerio ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: doug</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-50459</link>
		<dc:creator>doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:13:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-50459</guid>
		<description>Is there a way to make mssql aware that it needs to do an index seek rather than a table scan?  The proper indexes exist, and the statistics have been updated to my knowledge.  On one system, a join between two tables results in a table scan in one table.  One a separate database with the same schema/indexes, it does an index seek on both tables in the join.  How do I make mssql aware it needs to do an index seek on the one system?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is there a way to make mssql aware that it needs to do an index seek rather than a table scan?  The proper indexes exist, and the statistics have been updated to my knowledge.  On one system, a join between two tables results in a table scan in one table.  One a separate database with the same schema/indexes, it does an index seek on both tables in the join.  How do I make mssql aware it needs to do an index seek on the one system?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SQLAuthority News - Best Articles on SQLAuthority.com Journey to SQL Authority with Pinal Dave</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-47188</link>
		<dc:creator>SQLAuthority News - Best Articles on SQLAuthority.com Journey to SQL Authority with Pinal Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:07:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-47188</guid>
		<description>[...] SQL SERVER - Index Seek Vs. Index Scan (Table Scan) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SQL SERVER &#8211; Index Seek Vs. Index Scan (Table Scan) [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: zili</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-46703</link>
		<dc:creator>zili</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:09:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-46703</guid>
		<description>Hi Pinal,
I wanted to ask if there is something similar to the horizontal partitioning mechanism(automatic physical distribution of partitioned table in ms SQL 2005 SE).
Would be very useful if you could suggest  something similar to this mechanism(if the same is not available in MS SQL 2005 SE)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,<br />
I wanted to ask if there is something similar to the horizontal partitioning mechanism(automatic physical distribution of partitioned table in ms SQL 2005 SE).<br />
Would be very useful if you could suggest  something similar to this mechanism(if the same is not available in MS SQL 2005 SE)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Imran Mohammed</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-45508</link>
		<dc:creator>Imran Mohammed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:40:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-45508</guid>
		<description>@Ajay,

If you have sql server 2000 then 
1. Why dont you run Index Tuning Wizard, analyze your query, result of which recommends any improvements can be done on indexes for that query.

If you have SQL Server 2005,
1. Use Database Engine Tuning Advisor. This does the same thing, it will give you recommendations about indexes for that particular query.

Regards,
IM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Ajay,</p>
<p>If you have sql server 2000 then<br />
1. Why dont you run Index Tuning Wizard, analyze your query, result of which recommends any improvements can be done on indexes for that query.</p>
<p>If you have SQL Server 2005,<br />
1. Use Database Engine Tuning Advisor. This does the same thing, it will give you recommendations about indexes for that particular query.</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
IM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ajay</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-45441</link>
		<dc:creator>Ajay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 18:46:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-45441</guid>
		<description>Hi Pinal,

I have a table with abt 200K records. a &quot;where clause&quot; on a non-indexed field causes a &quot;clustered index scan&quot;. It works fine and fast, but perf degrades when concurrent users increase.

do you think a clustered index scan can be a good reason for perf hit with increase in concurrent users even in a table of this size. OR maybe i should keep looking further for other causes.

rgds

Ajay</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,</p>
<p>I have a table with abt 200K records. a &#8220;where clause&#8221; on a non-indexed field causes a &#8220;clustered index scan&#8221;. It works fine and fast, but perf degrades when concurrent users increase.</p>
<p>do you think a clustered index scan can be a good reason for perf hit with increase in concurrent users even in a table of this size. OR maybe i should keep looking further for other causes.</p>
<p>rgds</p>
<p>Ajay</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Virgilio</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43885</link>
		<dc:creator>Virgilio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:48:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43885</guid>
		<description>Hi Pinal,
Could you explain the Previous syntax:
SELECT * FROM PCHDotCom.dbo.BillMeEntries WITH (NOLOCK, INDEX=IX_BME_CREATED)
WHERE
Created &gt;= @StartDate AND
Created &lt; @EndDate
ORDER BY
1 DESC
=====
Is the Inde  = index name a Valid syntax if so how does it help performance wise??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,<br />
Could you explain the Previous syntax:<br />
SELECT * FROM PCHDotCom.dbo.BillMeEntries WITH (NOLOCK, INDEX=IX_BME_CREATED)<br />
WHERE<br />
Created &gt;= @StartDate AND<br />
Created &lt; @EndDate<br />
ORDER BY<br />
1 DESC<br />
=====<br />
Is the Inde  = index name a Valid syntax if so how does it help performance wise??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Johnny - Greece</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43810</link>
		<dc:creator>Johnny - Greece</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 08:47:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43810</guid>
		<description>Hi to all,

I should optimize a very simple query (select) where the actual execution plan presents a clustered index cost of 56 % due to estimated cost operator. how can i reduce this cost??

thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi to all,</p>
<p>I should optimize a very simple query (select) where the actual execution plan presents a clustered index cost of 56 % due to estimated cost operator. how can i reduce this cost??</p>
<p>thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sunil</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43120</link>
		<dc:creator>Sunil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:58:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-43120</guid>
		<description>Hi, 

Here is my Select statement 

UPDATE    FCE 
SET  
--FCE.RECAT_CREDIT_CMT = RIID.CREDIT_CMT, 
FCE.RECAT_DEAL_ID = RIID.DEAL_ID, 
FCE.RECAT_STATUS = RIID.STATUS, 
FCE.RECAT_STATUS_DT = RIID.CLM_STATUS_DT, 
FCE.RECAT_EUV_FLAG_ITEM = RIID.EUV_LINE_FLAG,
FCE.RECAT_EUV_FLAG = RIID.EUV_FLAG, 
FCE.M_CODE = RIID.MCODE,
FCE.RECAT_EUV_SUBMIT_DT =RIID.EUV_SUBMIT_DT,
FCE.RECAT_EUV_CONTROL_DT =RIID.EUV_CONTROL_DT,
FCE.STAKO_DEAL=RIID.STAKO_DEAL,
FCE.MMP_FLAG=RIID.MMP_FLAG
FROM FinClaimEntries FCE, RECAT_ITEMS RIID
where FCE.CLAIM_ID = RIID.ECLAIM_ID 
AND (FCE.recat_prod_item_id = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID
	OR FCE.recat_bdl_item_id = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID
	OR FCE.CLAIM_ITEM_ID = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID
	)
AND RIID.CLM_ID = (SELECT MAX(CLM_ID) FROM RECAT_ITEMS RIID2 where FCE.CLAIM_ID = RIID2.ECLAIM_ID )


Here is Number of Records Details

FinClaimEntries  - 78,589,25
RECAT_ITEMS -  97,256,86

Please let me know yours suggestion for Index Creation &amp; Joins

Thanks,
Sunil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, </p>
<p>Here is my Select statement </p>
<p>UPDATE    FCE<br />
SET<br />
&#8211;FCE.RECAT_CREDIT_CMT = RIID.CREDIT_CMT,<br />
FCE.RECAT_DEAL_ID = RIID.DEAL_ID,<br />
FCE.RECAT_STATUS = RIID.STATUS,<br />
FCE.RECAT_STATUS_DT = RIID.CLM_STATUS_DT,<br />
FCE.RECAT_EUV_FLAG_ITEM = RIID.EUV_LINE_FLAG,<br />
FCE.RECAT_EUV_FLAG = RIID.EUV_FLAG,<br />
FCE.M_CODE = RIID.MCODE,<br />
FCE.RECAT_EUV_SUBMIT_DT =RIID.EUV_SUBMIT_DT,<br />
FCE.RECAT_EUV_CONTROL_DT =RIID.EUV_CONTROL_DT,<br />
FCE.STAKO_DEAL=RIID.STAKO_DEAL,<br />
FCE.MMP_FLAG=RIID.MMP_FLAG<br />
FROM FinClaimEntries FCE, RECAT_ITEMS RIID<br />
where FCE.CLAIM_ID = RIID.ECLAIM_ID<br />
AND (FCE.recat_prod_item_id = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID<br />
	OR FCE.recat_bdl_item_id = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID<br />
	OR FCE.CLAIM_ITEM_ID = RIID.ECLM_ITEM_ID<br />
	)<br />
AND RIID.CLM_ID = (SELECT MAX(CLM_ID) FROM RECAT_ITEMS RIID2 where FCE.CLAIM_ID = RIID2.ECLAIM_ID )</p>
<p>Here is Number of Records Details</p>
<p>FinClaimEntries  &#8211; 78,589,25<br />
RECAT_ITEMS &#8211;  97,256,86</p>
<p>Please let me know yours suggestion for Index Creation &amp; Joins</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Sunil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sunil</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-42948</link>
		<dc:creator>sunil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 16:14:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-42948</guid>
		<description>Pinal,

Here&#039;s the query i was talking about.. I tested it in SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 both...

DECLARE @StartDate DATETIME
DECLARE @EndDate DATETIME
SET @StartDate = &#039;2008-09-11 16:00:00&#039;
SET @EndDate = &#039;2008-09-12 00:00:00&#039;
SELECT * FROM PCHDotCom.dbo.BillMeEntries WITH (NOLOCK, INDEX=IX_BME_CREATED)
WHERE
  Created &gt;= @StartDate AND
  Created &lt; @EndDate
ORDER BY
  1 DESC

If I remove the index hint,  the query plan will decide to do clustered index scan and the query takes drastically longer

Please help ASAP.

Thanks,
Sunil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pinal,</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s the query i was talking about.. I tested it in SQL 2000 and SQL 2005 both&#8230;</p>
<p>DECLARE @StartDate DATETIME<br />
DECLARE @EndDate DATETIME<br />
SET @StartDate = &#8216;2008-09-11 16:00:00&#8242;<br />
SET @EndDate = &#8216;2008-09-12 00:00:00&#8242;<br />
SELECT * FROM PCHDotCom.dbo.BillMeEntries WITH (NOLOCK, INDEX=IX_BME_CREATED)<br />
WHERE<br />
  Created &gt;= @StartDate AND<br />
  Created &lt; @EndDate<br />
ORDER BY<br />
  1 DESC</p>
<p>If I remove the index hint,  the query plan will decide to do clustered index scan and the query takes drastically longer</p>
<p>Please help ASAP.</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
Sunil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sunil</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-42946</link>
		<dc:creator>sunil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:58:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-42946</guid>
		<description>Pinal,


Your explainations are really amazing.

I have seen couple of times with SQL Server 2000 that for some reason, query optimizer do not use index on its own and query finishes in about 8 min while if I give hint(explicit) then it returns output in less than a min. I checked index frag and update stats.. all are looking fine.

Can you please advice ?

Thanks,
sunil</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pinal,</p>
<p>Your explainations are really amazing.</p>
<p>I have seen couple of times with SQL Server 2000 that for some reason, query optimizer do not use index on its own and query finishes in about 8 min while if I give hint(explicit) then it returns output in less than a min. I checked index frag and update stats.. all are looking fine.</p>
<p>Can you please advice ?</p>
<p>Thanks,<br />
sunil</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mohanraj</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-41344</link>
		<dc:creator>Mohanraj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:00:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-41344</guid>
		<description>Hi Pinal Dave,

I am trying to implement index by using substring function but its throwing an error so could u suggest me for better solution.

Generally, implementing this substring function in index for getting the index seek on the query.

Below is the syntax.

create nonclustered index IX_CreatedBy on TransDetails
(substring(createdby, charindex(&#039;\&#039;,CreatedBy) + 1, len(CreatedBy)))

in the db having the value like \
at this moment cannot change the table structure for this query alone.

Regards,
Mohanraj Jayaraman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal Dave,</p>
<p>I am trying to implement index by using substring function but its throwing an error so could u suggest me for better solution.</p>
<p>Generally, implementing this substring function in index for getting the index seek on the query.</p>
<p>Below is the syntax.</p>
<p>create nonclustered index IX_CreatedBy on TransDetails<br />
(substring(createdby, charindex(&#8216;\&#8217;,CreatedBy) + 1, len(CreatedBy)))</p>
<p>in the db having the value like \<br />
at this moment cannot change the table structure for this query alone.</p>
<p>Regards,<br />
Mohanraj Jayaraman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Smummert</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-40215</link>
		<dc:creator>Smummert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-40215</guid>
		<description>Remember the data size folks.  If an index has 40 bytes but the table has 400 bytes per row, the IO increases by a factor of 100 if all the data is together (read reorg).  Index will always be faster from a pure IO perspective because the IO buffers fetch more &#039;qualifying&#039; data per physical IO read than a table scan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Remember the data size folks.  If an index has 40 bytes but the table has 400 bytes per row, the IO increases by a factor of 100 if all the data is together (read reorg).  Index will always be faster from a pure IO perspective because the IO buffers fetch more &#8216;qualifying&#8217; data per physical IO read than a table scan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Evald</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-39380</link>
		<dc:creator>Evald</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:32:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-39380</guid>
		<description>table scan and index scan is not the same thing.
look at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964133.aspx

Table scan (called clustered index scan in the case of an index-based table) is faster than table scan of a heap table

Regards</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>table scan and index scan is not the same thing.<br />
look at <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964133.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa964133.aspx</a></p>
<p>Table scan (called clustered index scan in the case of an index-based table) is faster than table scan of a heap table</p>
<p>Regards</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amit Jain</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-39281</link>
		<dc:creator>Amit Jain</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jun 2008 06:42:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-39281</guid>
		<description>Hi Pinal,

I am currently working on migrating queries from DB2 to SQL Server 2005. 

Please refer to the following DB2 CREATE INDEX Query:

create index XFK_ACTV_CTC on ACTIVITY (
   CNTX_TYP_CD          ASC
)
allow reverse scans;

In IBM-DB2 the syntax &quot;ALLOW REVERSE SCANS&quot; - Specifies that an index can support both forward and reverse scans; that is, scanning of the index in the order that was defined at index creation time, and scanning in the opposite order. 

I have been trying to search for an equivalent syntax in SQL Server 2005, however I am not able to do so. 

Kindly help me in searching it.

Thanking you in anticipation.

Best Regards,
Amit</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Pinal,</p>
<p>I am currently working on migrating queries from DB2 to SQL Server 2005. </p>
<p>Please refer to the following DB2 CREATE INDEX Query:</p>
<p>create index XFK_ACTV_CTC on ACTIVITY (<br />
   CNTX_TYP_CD          ASC<br />
)<br />
allow reverse scans;</p>
<p>In IBM-DB2 the syntax &#8220;ALLOW REVERSE SCANS&#8221; &#8211; Specifies that an index can support both forward and reverse scans; that is, scanning of the index in the order that was defined at index creation time, and scanning in the opposite order. </p>
<p>I have been trying to search for an equivalent syntax in SQL Server 2005, however I am not able to do so. </p>
<p>Kindly help me in searching it.</p>
<p>Thanking you in anticipation.</p>
<p>Best Regards,<br />
Amit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Seema</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-38888</link>
		<dc:creator>Seema</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 11:51:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-38888</guid>
		<description>How does Sql Server know about the percentage of required rows in result without executing it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How does Sql Server know about the percentage of required rows in result without executing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aaron</title>
		<link>http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/sql-server-index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-38833</link>
		<dc:creator>Aaron</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 18:31:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2007/03/30/index-seek-vs-index-scan-table-scan/#comment-38833</guid>
		<description>Pinal:

How does SQL Server 2005 issues a search inside a page that belongs to a clustered index? Does it scan the page or simply performs a binary search (I mean, since the records are ordered in a clustered index)?

Best regards!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pinal:</p>
<p>How does SQL Server 2005 issues a search inside a page that belongs to a clustered index? Does it scan the page or simply performs a binary search (I mean, since the records are ordered in a clustered index)?</p>
<p>Best regards!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
