This question came up in a webcast recently: if a filtered index is causing data modifications to fail, does disabling the filtered index fix the problem?
I’m very that my session on table partitioning from the 2017 SQL PASS Summit is being featured as one of the “Best of Summit” videos.
I had a terrific time presenting this session, thanks to everyone in the audience: you were awesome!
You can watch the video here, and follow the link above to see even more great videos from the conference for free.
Last week’s Quizletter featured a quiz on keys vs included columns in SQL Server. I got a great question from a reader:
What do you consider a good reference and/or description of indexes for SQL Server? For example where would you have documentation that explains how the answer to #1 is right?
I received a question recently asking about disk access patterns for index seeks in SQL Server. The question suggested that index seeks would have a random read pattern.
Is this necessarily the case?
I had a great time giving a session recently for the 24 Hours of PASS - Summit Preview Edition.
Nonclustered indexes are awesome in SQL Server: they can get you huge performance gains.
But we can’t always create the perfect index for every query. And sometimes when SQL Server finds an index that isn’t quite perfect and decides to use it, it might make your query slower instead of faster.
I recently got an interesting question from a reader about running a CREATE INDEX statement with DROP_EXISTING
Copyright (c) 2025, Catalyze SQL, LLC; all rights reserved. Opinions expressed on this site are solely those of Kendra Little of Catalyze SQL, LLC. Content policy: Short excerpts of blog posts (3 sentences) may be republished, but longer excerpts and artwork cannot be shared without explicit permission.