Thanks for this excellent post!
i read it completely, found simply great.

A big Thanks to Laerte Junior also, he added nice inputs!

We can also get the details regarding Index by system stored procedure.

sp_estimate_data_compression_savings
[ @schema_name = ] ‘schema_name’
, [ @object_name = ] ‘object_name’
, [@index_id = ] index_id
, [@partition_number = ] partition_number
, [@data_compression = ] ‘data_compression’
[;]

Example:-
sp_estimate_data_compression_savings ‘dbo’, ‘dep’, NULL, NULL, ‘row’
Go
sp_estimate_data_compression_savings ‘dbo’, ‘emp’, NULL, NULL, ‘row’

Note:
1.Compression and sp_estimate_data_compression_savings are available only in the SQL Server 2008 Enterprise and Developer editions.

2. If the existing data is fragmented, you might be able to reduce its size without using compression by rebuilding the index. For indexes, the fill factor will be applied during an index rebuild. This could increase the size of the index.

Regards,
Girijesh

CREATE TABLE #indexSizes(ID int, Name nvarchar(4000), SizeInKB int, Comments nvarchar(4000))
exec sp_MSforeachtable ‘insert into #indexSizes(ID, Name, SizeInKB, Comments) exec sp_MSIndexSpace ”?” ‘
select * from #indexSizes
drop table #indexSizes

Why some indexname are null ?

Thanks
Rohit

its very much clear now about index sizes.

THANKS AND REGARDS
Kamesh Shah

Please check your index if that is clustered.

It is now giving absolute correct result.i made that index non clustered and now perfect result.

Amazing hands on SQL SERVER Sir.HATS OFF to you..

i have drawn conclusion that if there is a clustered index then size of index would be displayed index size + table size

but if the index is non clustered then size of index will be separate from table size and

sir note that not even a single insert of mine is overflowing the page size that is 8060 bytes so would be in a single partition and no furhter allocation.

but why sizes are consolidated and separated ?? see as far as i know then it has to do something with mix and uniform extents or else concept is there??

My second perception on this is (just what i know)
–> Clustered index consist a data rows in a leaf node thats why its size is consolidated with table size

–> non cluster index contains a row locator at leaf node thats why index structure is totally separated from table data structure

my question is like why clustered index size is calculated like=table size+index size
and non clustered is like only table size different and index size different???

THANKS AND REGARDS
Kamesh Shah

THANKS and REGARDS
Kamesh Shah

I used
SELECT
OBJECT_NAME(i.OBJECT_ID) AS TableName,
i.name AS IndexName,
i.index_id AS IndexID,
8 * SUM(a.used_pages) AS ‘Indexsize(KB)’
FROM sys.indexes AS i
JOIN sys.partitions AS p ON p.OBJECT_ID = i.OBJECT_ID AND p.index_id = i.index_id
JOIN sys.allocation_units AS a ON a.container_id = p.partition_id
GROUP BY i.OBJECT_ID,i.index_id,i.name
ORDER BY OBJECT_NAME(i.OBJECT_ID),i.index_id

this your query to get the index size which is giving 20496 KB

for the same m trying now sp_spaceused SP again to get the index size then for total database it is giving me 808KB There is a vast difference.

AND one more thing
this size which from this query we are getting is calculated for data pages which stores data not which stores index
i want seperate index size which not includes data.
i made a crosscheck and that time i used query

EXEC sp_MSforeachtable @command1=”EXEC sp_spaceused ‘?’”

used query is giving me a table size 20336 KB and index size for that table 160 KB

in a nutshell,

from ur query i m getting index size 20496 KB and from sp_spaceused i m getting index for that atble 160 KB

If you wish i can send you the snaps for that in ur email.

and dont mind if directly or indirectly i had written something not properly as i had only 6 months experience i m fresher

THANKS and REGARDS
Kamesh Shah

Here is one I wrote. This one gives the filegroup the object belongs to and filters out system objects.

SELECT
fg.name as FileGroup,
obj.name as table_name,
ISNULL(ind.name,”) as index_name,
ind.type_desc,
used_page_count,
used_page_count/128 AS used_page_size_MB,
reserved_page_count,
reserved_page_count/128 AS reserved_page_size_MB
FROM sys.dm_db_partition_stats AS ps
INNER JOIN sys.indexes AS ind
ON ps.object_id = ind.object_id
and ps.index_id = ind.index_id
INNER JOIN sys.objects as obj
ON ind.object_id=obj.object_id
INNER JOIN sys.filegroups as fg
ON fg.data_space_id=ind.data_space_id
WHERE obj.type’S’
ORDER BY obj.name, ind.name

Thanks,
Jeremy

This is excellent comment! I really like it.

Kind Regards,
Pinal

I do not say better, but maybe another approach to enthusiasts in powershell and SQLSPX library would be:

1 – All indexes in all tables and all databases
Get-SqlDatabase -sqlserver “Yourserver” | Get-SqlTable | Get-SqlIndex | Format-table Server,dbname,schema,table,name,id,spaceused

2 – All Indexes in all tables and especific database
Get-SqlDatabase -sqlserver “Yourserver” “Yourdb” | Get-SqlTable | Get-SqlIndex | Format-table Server,dbname,schema,table,name,id,spaceused

3 – All Indexes in especific table and database
Get-SqlDatabase -sqlserver “Yourserver” “Yourdb” | Get-SqlTable “YourTable” | Get-SqlIndex | Format-table Server,dbname,schema,table,name,id,spaceused

and to output to txt.. pipe Out-File

Get-SqlDatabase -sqlserver “Yourserver” | Get-SqlTable | Get-SqlIndex | Format-table Server,dbname,schema,table,name,id,spaceused | out-file c:\IndexesSize.txt

If you have one txt with all your servers, can be for all of them also.

Lets say you have all your servers in servers.txt: something like
NameServer1
NameServer2
NameServer3
NameServer4

We could Use :
foreach ($Server in Get-content c:\temp\servers.txt) {
Get-SqlDatabase -sqlserver $Server | Get-SqlTable | Get-SqlIndex | Format-table Server,dbname,schema,table,name,id,spaceused
}

:)