If a VARCHAR(MAX) column is included in an index, is the entire value always stored in the index page(s)?





.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}







2















I'm asking this out of curiosity, being inspired by this question.



We know that VARCHAR(MAX) values longer than 8000 bytes are not stored in rows, but in separate LOB pages. Subsequently retrieving a row with such value requires two or more logical IO operations (essentially, one more than otherwise would theoretically be necessary).



We can add a VARCHAR(MAX) column to a unique index, as demonstrated in the linked question. If this column has values that exceed 8000 bytes in length, would such values still be stored "inline" in the index leaf pages, or would they also be moved to LOB pages?










share|improve this question





























    2















    I'm asking this out of curiosity, being inspired by this question.



    We know that VARCHAR(MAX) values longer than 8000 bytes are not stored in rows, but in separate LOB pages. Subsequently retrieving a row with such value requires two or more logical IO operations (essentially, one more than otherwise would theoretically be necessary).



    We can add a VARCHAR(MAX) column to a unique index, as demonstrated in the linked question. If this column has values that exceed 8000 bytes in length, would such values still be stored "inline" in the index leaf pages, or would they also be moved to LOB pages?










    share|improve this question

























      2












      2








      2








      I'm asking this out of curiosity, being inspired by this question.



      We know that VARCHAR(MAX) values longer than 8000 bytes are not stored in rows, but in separate LOB pages. Subsequently retrieving a row with such value requires two or more logical IO operations (essentially, one more than otherwise would theoretically be necessary).



      We can add a VARCHAR(MAX) column to a unique index, as demonstrated in the linked question. If this column has values that exceed 8000 bytes in length, would such values still be stored "inline" in the index leaf pages, or would they also be moved to LOB pages?










      share|improve this question














      I'm asking this out of curiosity, being inspired by this question.



      We know that VARCHAR(MAX) values longer than 8000 bytes are not stored in rows, but in separate LOB pages. Subsequently retrieving a row with such value requires two or more logical IO operations (essentially, one more than otherwise would theoretically be necessary).



      We can add a VARCHAR(MAX) column to a unique index, as demonstrated in the linked question. If this column has values that exceed 8000 bytes in length, would such values still be stored "inline" in the index leaf pages, or would they also be moved to LOB pages?







      sql-server varchar






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 hours ago









      mustacciomustaccio

      10.1k72240




      10.1k72240






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          Values that exceed 8000 bytes cannot be stored "inline". They are stored on LOB pages. You can see this with sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats. Start with a simple table:



          DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #LOB_FOR_ME;

          CREATE TABLE #LOB_FOR_ME (
          ID BIGINT,
          MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE VARCHAR(MAX)
          );

          CREATE INDEX IX ON #LOB_FOR_ME (ID) INCLUDE (MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE);


          Now insert some rows with values that take 8000 bytes for the VARCHAR(MAX) column and check out the DMF:



          INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
          SELECT 1, REPLICATE('Z', 8000)
          FROM master..spt_values;

          SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
          FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


          There are no LOB pages in the index:



          ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
          ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
          ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
          ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
          ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2540 ║
          ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
          ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


          But if I add rows with values that take 8001 bytes:



          INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
          SELECT 2, REPLICATE(CAST('Z' AS VARCHAR(MAX)), 8001)
          FROM master..spt_values;

          SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
          FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


          Now I have 1 LOB page in the index for every row that I just inserted:



          ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
          ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
          ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
          ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2556 ║ 5080 ║
          ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2556 ║
          ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
          ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ LOB_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
          ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


          You can also see this with SET STATISTICS IO ON; and the right query. Consider the following query that only looks at rows with 8000 bytes:



          SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
          FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
          WHERE ID = 1;


          Results upon executing:




          Scan count 1, logical reads 2560, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads
          0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.




          If I instead query the rows with 8001 bytes:



          SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
          FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
          WHERE ID = 2;


          Now I see lob reads:




          Scan count 1, logical reads 20, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0,
          lob logical reads 5080, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.







          share|improve this answer
























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "182"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f235102%2fif-a-varcharmax-column-is-included-in-an-index-is-the-entire-value-always-sto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            Values that exceed 8000 bytes cannot be stored "inline". They are stored on LOB pages. You can see this with sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats. Start with a simple table:



            DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #LOB_FOR_ME;

            CREATE TABLE #LOB_FOR_ME (
            ID BIGINT,
            MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE VARCHAR(MAX)
            );

            CREATE INDEX IX ON #LOB_FOR_ME (ID) INCLUDE (MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE);


            Now insert some rows with values that take 8000 bytes for the VARCHAR(MAX) column and check out the DMF:



            INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
            SELECT 1, REPLICATE('Z', 8000)
            FROM master..spt_values;

            SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
            FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


            There are no LOB pages in the index:



            ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
            ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
            ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
            ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
            ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2540 ║
            ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
            ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


            But if I add rows with values that take 8001 bytes:



            INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
            SELECT 2, REPLICATE(CAST('Z' AS VARCHAR(MAX)), 8001)
            FROM master..spt_values;

            SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
            FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


            Now I have 1 LOB page in the index for every row that I just inserted:



            ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
            ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
            ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
            ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2556 ║ 5080 ║
            ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2556 ║
            ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
            ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ LOB_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
            ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


            You can also see this with SET STATISTICS IO ON; and the right query. Consider the following query that only looks at rows with 8000 bytes:



            SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
            FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
            WHERE ID = 1;


            Results upon executing:




            Scan count 1, logical reads 2560, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads
            0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.




            If I instead query the rows with 8001 bytes:



            SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
            FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
            WHERE ID = 2;


            Now I see lob reads:




            Scan count 1, logical reads 20, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0,
            lob logical reads 5080, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.







            share|improve this answer




























              3














              Values that exceed 8000 bytes cannot be stored "inline". They are stored on LOB pages. You can see this with sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats. Start with a simple table:



              DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #LOB_FOR_ME;

              CREATE TABLE #LOB_FOR_ME (
              ID BIGINT,
              MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE VARCHAR(MAX)
              );

              CREATE INDEX IX ON #LOB_FOR_ME (ID) INCLUDE (MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE);


              Now insert some rows with values that take 8000 bytes for the VARCHAR(MAX) column and check out the DMF:



              INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
              SELECT 1, REPLICATE('Z', 8000)
              FROM master..spt_values;

              SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
              FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


              There are no LOB pages in the index:



              ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
              ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
              ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
              ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
              ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2540 ║
              ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
              ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


              But if I add rows with values that take 8001 bytes:



              INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
              SELECT 2, REPLICATE(CAST('Z' AS VARCHAR(MAX)), 8001)
              FROM master..spt_values;

              SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
              FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


              Now I have 1 LOB page in the index for every row that I just inserted:



              ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
              ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
              ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
              ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2556 ║ 5080 ║
              ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2556 ║
              ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
              ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ LOB_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
              ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


              You can also see this with SET STATISTICS IO ON; and the right query. Consider the following query that only looks at rows with 8000 bytes:



              SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
              FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
              WHERE ID = 1;


              Results upon executing:




              Scan count 1, logical reads 2560, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads
              0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.




              If I instead query the rows with 8001 bytes:



              SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
              FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
              WHERE ID = 2;


              Now I see lob reads:




              Scan count 1, logical reads 20, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0,
              lob logical reads 5080, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.







              share|improve this answer


























                3












                3








                3







                Values that exceed 8000 bytes cannot be stored "inline". They are stored on LOB pages. You can see this with sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats. Start with a simple table:



                DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #LOB_FOR_ME;

                CREATE TABLE #LOB_FOR_ME (
                ID BIGINT,
                MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE VARCHAR(MAX)
                );

                CREATE INDEX IX ON #LOB_FOR_ME (ID) INCLUDE (MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE);


                Now insert some rows with values that take 8000 bytes for the VARCHAR(MAX) column and check out the DMF:



                INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
                SELECT 1, REPLICATE('Z', 8000)
                FROM master..spt_values;

                SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
                FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


                There are no LOB pages in the index:



                ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
                ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
                ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
                ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2540 ║
                ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
                ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


                But if I add rows with values that take 8001 bytes:



                INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
                SELECT 2, REPLICATE(CAST('Z' AS VARCHAR(MAX)), 8001)
                FROM master..spt_values;

                SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
                FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


                Now I have 1 LOB page in the index for every row that I just inserted:



                ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
                ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
                ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2556 ║ 5080 ║
                ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2556 ║
                ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ LOB_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
                ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


                You can also see this with SET STATISTICS IO ON; and the right query. Consider the following query that only looks at rows with 8000 bytes:



                SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
                FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
                WHERE ID = 1;


                Results upon executing:




                Scan count 1, logical reads 2560, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads
                0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.




                If I instead query the rows with 8001 bytes:



                SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
                FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
                WHERE ID = 2;


                Now I see lob reads:




                Scan count 1, logical reads 20, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0,
                lob logical reads 5080, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.







                share|improve this answer













                Values that exceed 8000 bytes cannot be stored "inline". They are stored on LOB pages. You can see this with sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats. Start with a simple table:



                DROP TABLE IF EXISTS #LOB_FOR_ME;

                CREATE TABLE #LOB_FOR_ME (
                ID BIGINT,
                MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE VARCHAR(MAX)
                );

                CREATE INDEX IX ON #LOB_FOR_ME (ID) INCLUDE (MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE);


                Now insert some rows with values that take 8000 bytes for the VARCHAR(MAX) column and check out the DMF:



                INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
                SELECT 1, REPLICATE('Z', 8000)
                FROM master..spt_values;

                SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
                FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


                There are no LOB pages in the index:



                ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
                ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
                ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
                ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2540 ║
                ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
                ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


                But if I add rows with values that take 8001 bytes:



                INSERT INTO #LOB_FOR_ME
                SELECT 2, REPLICATE(CAST('Z' AS VARCHAR(MAX)), 8001)
                FROM master..spt_values;

                SELECT index_level, index_type_desc, alloc_unit_type_desc, page_count, record_count
                FROM sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats(DB_ID(), OBJECT_ID('#LOB_FOR_ME'), 2, NULL , 'DETAILED');


                Now I have 1 LOB page in the index for every row that I just inserted:



                ╔═════════════╦════════════════════╦══════════════════════╦════════════╦══════════════╗
                ║ index_level ║ index_type_desc ║ alloc_unit_type_desc ║ page_count ║ record_count ║
                ╠═════════════╬════════════════════╬══════════════════════╬════════════╬══════════════╣
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 2556 ║ 5080 ║
                ║ 1 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 18 ║ 2556 ║
                ║ 2 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ IN_ROW_DATA ║ 1 ║ 18 ║
                ║ 0 ║ NONCLUSTERED INDEX ║ LOB_DATA ║ 2540 ║ 2540 ║
                ╚═════════════╩════════════════════╩══════════════════════╩════════════╩══════════════╝


                You can also see this with SET STATISTICS IO ON; and the right query. Consider the following query that only looks at rows with 8000 bytes:



                SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
                FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
                WHERE ID = 1;


                Results upon executing:




                Scan count 1, logical reads 2560, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads
                0, lob logical reads 0, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.




                If I instead query the rows with 8001 bytes:



                SELECT SUM(LEN(MAX_VERNON_WAS_HERE))
                FROM #LOB_FOR_ME
                WHERE ID = 2;


                Now I see lob reads:




                Scan count 1, logical reads 20, physical reads 0, read-ahead reads 0,
                lob logical reads 5080, lob physical reads 0, lob read-ahead reads 0.








                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 1 hour ago









                Joe ObbishJoe Obbish

                22k43392




                22k43392






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f235102%2fif-a-varcharmax-column-is-included-in-an-index-is-the-entire-value-always-sto%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                    Bunad

                    Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum