having no more than 16 columns in a index?
I know it's a lot but the table is small and performance
should not be a problem.Nope, this is a hard limit.
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Sandra" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:041501c3d704$575f24c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||If I remember correctly, it seems that you might be able to create a virtual
> Is there anyway I can by pass this sqlserver limitation of
> having no more than 16 columns in a index?
> I know it's a lot but the table is small and performance
> should not be a problem.
column which concatenates several other columns, then index it..., but the
900 byte limit is a hard limit..
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Sandra" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:041501c3d704$575f24c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:|||You might post DDL and some sample DML on how queries will be run on your
> Is there anyway I can by pass this sqlserver limitation of
> having no more than 16 columns in a index?
> I know it's a lot but the table is small and performance
> should not be a problem.
table, maybe a large composite index isn't the best choice.
Ray Higdon MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
--
"Sandra" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:041501c3d704$575f24c0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
quote:
> Is there anyway I can by pass this sqlserver limitation of
> having no more than 16 columns in a index?
> I know it's a lot but the table is small and performance
> should not be a problem.
