index fragmentation

Using SS2000. Sometimes when I run DBCC SHOWCONTIG (D_Promotion_Date) WITH FAST, TABLERESULTS, ALL_INDEXES, NO_INFOMSGS I get results like those below. The second line is a valid index - cognos_1 - but the first line doesn't have an index name but it show
s 90% fragmentation. Why does that line without an index name show up? Is there a way to get rid of it? Does it matter that it shows up?
d_promotion_date45357665400101132911268.37099999999999521454129.8999938964843798.39511108398437540.02590.080.0
d_promotion_date453576654cognos_1608NULLNULLNULLNULLNULL02NULLNULL33.333333333333329130.0NULL
Thanks,
Dan D.
It's the heap - look in BOL for DBCC SHOWCONTIG and it explains about the
null name and index id=0. It also explains that logical scan fragmentation
is not relevant for heaps.
Regards.
Paul Randal
Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E5B09B34-D54E-4176-BE47-41B41E6D95E3@.microsoft.com...
> Using SS2000. Sometimes when I run DBCC SHOWCONTIG (D_Promotion_Date) WITH
FAST, TABLERESULTS, ALL_INDEXES, NO_INFOMSGS I get results like those below.
The second line is a valid index - cognos_1 - but the first line doesn't
have an index name but it shows 90% fragmentation. Why does that line
without an index name show up? Is there a way to get rid of it? Does it
matter that it shows up?
>
> d_promotion_date 453576654 0 0 10 1132 9 112 68.370999999999995 214 5 4
129.89999389648437 98.395111083984375 40.0 2 5 90.0 80.0
> d_promotion_date 453576654 cognos_1 6 0 8 NULL NULL NULL NULL NULL 0 2
NULL NULL 33.333333333333329 1 3 0.0 NULL
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
|||Thanks.
Dan D.
"Paul S Randal [MS]" wrote:

> It's the heap - look in BOL for DBCC SHOWCONTIG and it explains about the
> null name and index id=0. It also explains that logical scan fragmentation
> is not relevant for heaps.
> Regards.
> --
> Paul Randal
> Dev Lead, Microsoft SQL Server Storage Engine
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E5B09B34-D54E-4176-BE47-41B41E6D95E3@.microsoft.com...
> FAST, TABLERESULTS, ALL_INDEXES, NO_INFOMSGS I get results like those below.
> The second line is a valid index - cognos_1 - but the first line doesn't
> have an index name but it shows 90% fragmentation. Why does that line
> without an index name show up? Is there a way to get rid of it? Does it
> matter that it shows up?
> 129.89999389648437 98.395111083984375 40.0 2 5 90.0 80.0
> NULL NULL 33.333333333333329 1 3 0.0 NULL
>
>