"Mark D Powell" <Mark.Powell_at_eds.com> wrote in message
news:1142115991.869498.239820_at_i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Creating indexes that will not be used wastes space and adds another
> index that has to be maintained to the target table.
>
> Now any large table with a FK to a volatile (heavy update and delete)
> parent row will require an index on the FK column. Child tables to
> parent tables where the PK or UK is never updated and the partent rows
> are not deleted are highly unlikely to ever show up as a performance
> problem that traces back to the lack of an index to support the FK.
>
> My experience says that a significant percentage of FK definitions can
> get away without an index to support DML activity on the parent, but if
> you do not know the parent DML activity or your are working on a
> product that will be used differently by different customers out in the
> field I would error on the side of adding the index.
>
> IMHO -- Mark D Powell --
>
Mark D Powell is absolutely correct on this one.
Received on Sat Mar 11 2006 - 16:53:06 CST
