I've been trying out running some queries for a testing scenario and I noticed that when doing a full-scan of a nonclustered index, SQL Server reads more pages than actually are in the index.
As you can see from the image below, my query is (a simple one):
select
sometext
, somemoretext
from tbl
and I have an exact covering nonclustered index for those columns.
In Profiler the number of pages read for this is 22,356
as you can see in the image.
But when looking at the index details, under Fragmentation, the number of pages for this index is 22,278
.
What is the cause for this difference in pages read (78
to be precise)? Is the number in the Fragmentation section not reliable or is there some other explanation?
The index is not fragmented (or appears not to be), so there are no more pages than those 22,278
.. or are there? I wasn't able to find an explanation for this online, on Microsoft sites or otherwise.
(This is a controlled environment, no inserts and no deletes occurred on the table while taking screenshots for this question)
I have also pasted the plan here.
Best Answer
You should check what code is submitted to the server when you open "Fragmentation" (using
SQL Server Profiler
)And you'll see the following code:
Note the mode: it's
'SAMPLED'
.The code returns only 1 row that reflects
page_count
of theleaf level
of the index.Now change the code to use
'DETAILED'
and you'll find missing pages from non-leaf levels.Here is my repro.
I first look at Fragmentation tab where I find that my
ix_include_filler
index has20836
pages.Then I executed the code that I saw in
Profiler
, and the code as it is uses"SAMPLED"
, returns 1 row and shows20836
pages that we see in"Fragmentation"
tab.Then I changed
"SAMPLED"
to"DETAILED"
and clearly see that these20836
are only from a leaf level. Level N1 has other36
pages + a root.If your
SSMS
launches different code when you open Fragmentation tab, maybe you should update your question with SSMS version and spy the code it sends by yourself.My SSMS's version is 10.50.6000.34 and my explanation is valid for this version.