the first query does a table scan based on the threshold I earlier explained in: Is it possible to increase query performance on a narrow table with millions of rows?
(most likely your query without the TOP 1000
clause will return more then 46k rows. or some where between 35k and 46k. (the grey area ;-) )
the second query, must be ordered. Since you're NC index is ordered in the order you want, it's cheaper for the optimiser to use that index, and then to the bookmark lookups to the clustered index to get the missing columns as compaired to doing a clustered index scan and then needing to order that.
reverse the order of the columns in the ORDER BY
clause and you are back to a clustered index scan since the NC INDEX is then useless.
edit forgot the answer to your second question, why you DON'T want this
Using a non clustered non covering index means that a rowID is looked up in the NC index and then the missing columns have to be looked up in the clustered index (the clustered index contains all columns of a table). IO's to lookup the missing columns in the clustered index are Random IOs.
The key here is RANDOM. because for every row found in the NC index, the access methods have to go look up a new page in the clustered index. This is random, and therefore very expensive.
Now, on other hand the optimiser could also go for a clustered index scan. It can use the allocation maps to lookup scan ranges and just start reading the Clustered index in large chunks. This is sequential and much cheaper. (as long as your table isn't fragmented :-) ) The downside is, the WHOLE clustered index needs to be read. This is bad for your buffer and potentially a huge amount of IOs. but still, sequential IOs.
In your case, the optimiser decides somewhere between 35k and 46k rows, it's less expensive to to a full clustered index scan. Yeah, it's wrong. And in a lot of cases with narrow non clustered indexes with not to selective WHERE
clauses or large table for that matter this goes wrong. (Your table is worse, because it's also a very narrow table.)
Now, adding the ORDER BY
makes it more expensive to scan the full clustered index and then order the results. Instead, the optimiser assumes it's cheaper to use the allready ordered NC index and then pay the random IO penalty for the bookmark lookups.
So your order by is a perfect "query hint" kind of solution. BUT, at a certain point, once your query results are so big, the penalty for the bookmark lookup random IOs will be so big it becomes slower. I assume the optimiser will change plans back to the clustered index scan before that point but you never know for sure.
In your case, as long as your inserts are ordered by entereddate, as discussed in chat and the previous question (see link) you are better of creating the clustered index on the enteredDate column.
If you just need the size of the entire database then below script will help you :
SELECT @@servername as server_name,
d.name,
CONVERT(DECIMAL(10,2),(SUM(size * 8.00) / 1024.00)) Size_MBs
FROM sys.master_files mf
INNER JOIN sys.databases d ON d.database_id = mf.database_id
WHERE d.database_id > 4 -- Skip system databases
AND d.state_desc = 'ONLINE'-- ONLY get size for ONLINE database.
GROUP BY d.name
ORDER BY d.name
If you want to automate your migration of databases from one server to another, I highly recommend using sqlmigration - a powershell script that will migrate your databases, jobs, logins, etc from one server to another. Also, be aware of the pre and post migration steps if you are moving from one version of sql server to higher (2012 or 2014) version.
Depending on your size of databases and the amount of downtime, there are ways that you can implement to minimize the downtime for your entire migration - e.g. using logshipping or mirroring and then during cutover, just failover to the new server, etc.
Always prepare and test your migration and rollback procedures.
Edit: From your screenshot, it seems that you do not have permissions. Can you just do a select * from sys.master_files
Best Answer
This is explained by the rules for operator precedence:
Operator Precedence (Transact-SQL)
As noted there,
AND
has a higher evaluation precedence thanOR
.The
1 = 1
parts of your query are redundant (and removed by the optimizer). You could equally well have written:This produces the same result, for the same reason (precedence):
Demo on Stack Exchange Data Explorer
I would strongly suggest using the version with parentheses for clarity.