It's well documented that duplicate indexes are literally a waste of space so I'm not going to blog about that, here's a post from Kevin Hill that covers what you need to know:
Duplicate Indexes Explained - DallasDBAs.com
Lets take the following query that I will run against the AdventureWorks2019 sample database:
SELECT FirstName, LastName, MiddleNameFROM Person.Person p
WHERE FirstName = 'Allison' AND LastName = 'Stewart'
OPTION (RECOMPILE);
Here's the plan:
As there is an index that has the LastName and FirstName columns the optimiser has opted for an index seek operator using the IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName index, and if I look into the Plan XML I can see that it's using a trivial plan: StatementOptmLevel="TRIVIAL".
This basically means there's one obvious way to return the query results so the optimiser has avoided the cost of going through full optimisation and has elected to use this plan straightaway.
So what happens if I create an identical copy of that particular index, in fact let's create five indexes that are exactly the same:
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_1] ON [Person].[Person]
(
[LastName] ASC,
[FirstName] ASC,
[MiddleName] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_2] ON [Person].[Person]
(
[LastName] ASC,
[FirstName] ASC,
[MiddleName] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_3] ON [Person].[Person]
(
[LastName] ASC,
[FirstName] ASC,
[MiddleName] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_4] ON [Person].[Person]
(
[LastName] ASC,
[FirstName] ASC,
[MiddleName] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
CREATE NONCLUSTERED INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_5] ON [Person].[Person]
(
[LastName] ASC,
[FirstName] ASC,
[MiddleName] ASC
)WITH (PAD_INDEX = OFF, STATISTICS_NORECOMPUTE = OFF, SORT_IN_TEMPDB = OFF, DROP_EXISTING = OFF, ONLINE = OFF, ALLOW_ROW_LOCKS = ON, ALLOW_PAGE_LOCKS = ON, OPTIMIZE_FOR_SEQUENTIAL_KEY = OFF) ON [PRIMARY]
GO
As a side thought; wouldn't it be great if Clippy appeared and told me I already had an index with the same columns and that these weren't needed? It would be great, but SQL doesn't check for these things so the duplicate indexes get created straight with no fuss.
Now the first thing I wondered was if the optimiser would not use full optimisation because it has additional indexes to think about but no, looking at the Plan XML I see that a trivial plan has been used again: StatementOptmLevel="TRIVIAL". So what index has it used?
DROP INDEX [IX_Person_LastName_FirstName_MiddleName_5] ON [Person].[Person]
GO
When I run the query it has again used the "latest" duplicate index:
I did wonder if it's in some way limited to trivial plans so I added a join to my query to give the optimiser something to think about and use full optimisation:
SELECT FirstName, LastName, MiddleName, b.BusinessEntityID
FROM Person.Person p
INNER JOIN Person.BusinessEntity b ON p.BusinessEntityID = b.BusinessEntityID
WHERE FirstName = 'Allison' AND LastName = 'Stewart'
OPTION (RECOMPILE);
This time the Plan XML shows StatementOptmLevel="FULL" so the optimiser has had to do a bit of extra work, and if we look at the execution plan again we can see it's using the "latest" index again:
Now I'm going to have to do some more digging to see if the optimiser always uses the most recent or latest index, maybe it's default behaviour - if you know then please let me know!
And to clean things up I'll remove all those duplicate indexes before writing any more queries!
Nice post! Curiosity got the better of me and I ran your script with the index numbers in reverse. My query plan picked 1 first then 2 after deletion which would suggest the choice is related to the creation time rather than the index name.
ReplyDeleteAwesome, glad the curiosity got the better of you as I was going to try some different names for the indexes to see if it could be that! :-)
Delete