2025-06-30
370 reads
2025-06-30
370 reads
2025-06-23
456 reads
Erik shows that heaps have even more drawbacks under optimistic concurrency.
2018-02-07
2,743 reads
You should stick to using tables in SQL Server, rather than heaps that have no clustered index, unless you have well-considered reasons to choose heaps. However, there are uses for heaps in special circumstances, and it is useful to know what these uses are, and when you should avoid heaps. Uwe Ricken explains, and demonstrates why you'd be unwise to use heaps rather than tables when the data is liable to change.
2016-10-14
3,646 reads
In SQL Server, heaps are rightly treated with suspicion. Although there are rare cases where they perform well, they are likely to be the cause of poor performance. If a table is likely to have a large number of changes, then it can become fragmented due to way that space is allocated and forward pointers used. How does one detect this problem? Is it significant? How does one deal with it, if necessary? Neeraj Tripathi explains.
2015-11-23
3,694 reads
2014-05-21
1,843 reads
When no clustered index is defined on a table, that table is said to be a Heap. Heaps are not ideal when it comes to performance but there are lots of instances where you have heaps.
2013-05-15
3,128 reads
By Steve Jones
on tenderhooks – adj. feeling the primal satisfaction of being needed by someone, which...
By DataOnWheels
I have been active in the data community throughout my career. I have met...
By Vinay Thakur
Quick Summary for Microsoft SQL Server till 2025, I am fortunate to be part...
I have a quick question on Ola Hallengren Index Optimize Maintenance . Do we...
hi, in an ssis for each loop over an object variable called MyListVariable, i...
SQL Server is typically viewed as a transactional or analytical database engine. However, it...
On SQL Server 2025, when I run this, what is returned?
SELECT EDIT_DISTANCE_SIMILARITY('SQL Server', 'MySQL') See possible answers