Create index on col with data and without data, any time differenc

Hello:
In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
Thanks,
Q
Hi
I don't think there will be a significant difference in the time taken to
create the index, but if you then significantly change the data in the
column, the index may be fragmented and the statistics out of date, therefore
it would be better to build the index once populated.
John
"Q" wrote:

> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
> Thanks,
> Q
|||No rows are omitted from an index. Not even rows where the indexed
column is NULL. So the time to index the column would be the same,
regardless of any value (or NULL) (assuming fixed size data type).
Gert-Jan
Q wrote:
> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
> Thanks,
> Q

Create index on col with data and without data, any time differenc

Hello:
In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or no
t.
Thanks,
QHi
I don't think there will be a significant difference in the time taken to
create the index, but if you then significantly change the data in the
column, the index may be fragmented and the statistics out of date, therefor
e
it would be better to build the index once populated.
John
"Q" wrote:

> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time
it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or
not.
> Thanks,
> Q|||No rows are omitted from an index. Not even rows where the indexed
column is NULL. So the time to index the column would be the same,
regardless of any value (or NULL) (assuming fixed size data type).
Gert-Jan
Q wrote:
> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time
it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or
not.
> Thanks,
> Q

Create index on col with data and without data, any time differenc

Hello:
In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
Thanks,
QHi
I don't think there will be a significant difference in the time taken to
create the index, but if you then significantly change the data in the
column, the index may be fragmented and the statistics out of date, therefore
it would be better to build the index once populated.
John
"Q" wrote:
> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
> Thanks,
> Q|||No rows are omitted from an index. Not even rows where the indexed
column is NULL. So the time to index the column would be the same,
regardless of any value (or NULL) (assuming fixed size data type).
Gert-Jan
Q wrote:
> Hello:
> In terms of the time it takes to create an index (non-clustered) in a
> column, would it be faster if the column contains only null? Or the time it
> takes to create an index will be the same whether this column has data or not.
> Thanks,
> Q