Newsequentialid error validating default carbon dating of god

Posted by / 12-Jul-2020 05:35

Newsequentialid error validating default

You'll have probably noticed that My Guid is larger than My Guid Seq; this is because SQL Server tables with a clustered index are stored in the indices physical order, something which I was unaware of until I posted this stack overflow question!I actually thought that clustered indices were a separate entity, stored along side the table.So then, to make it űberfair, let's take the My Guid Seq table and work out how much more storage is uses than the My Big Int table: 24,986 - 16,904 = 8,064Kb extra storage per 1 million rows at its best, 21,824Kb at it's worst.

By their very nature, non-sequential rows are inserted into the middle of an index, whereas sequential rows are generally appended to the end of an index.As it stands, this doesn't mean too much - as you'd want to avoid getting to 99% fragmentation anyway (by managing any indices that become more than 5% fragmented - but that's a whole other article).So, I also ran the above test with 5% and 30% fragmentation values, and both got to 324 records before becoming fragmented.Saying that, the same would apply to an INT or BIGINT column, as the new value is likely to create a new page in the index.Ignoring the NEWID() tables I created earlier (I think it's safe to say that I have already provided enough evidence that NEWID() is not suitable for use in a default constraint on a key column), we can now take a look at how quickly joins and lookups perform across the data types.

newsequentialid error validating default-51newsequentialid error validating default-46newsequentialid error validating default-21

The above table also helps when comparing the size of UNIQUEIDENTIFIER, INT and BIGINT based indices.