<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Beware the SQL Index property on NAV 5.0 SP1</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/nav_developer/archive/2009/04/10/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-5-0-sp1.aspx</link><description>The discussion of the changes starting with Microsoft Dynamics NAV version 5 regarding the use of Dynamic cursors has already been addressed in the article titled "Cursor Types" on the SE Blog - http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_dynamics_nav_sustained_engineering/</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>Beware the SQL Index property on NAV 5.0 SP1 | Microsoft Share Point</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/nav_developer/archive/2009/04/10/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-5-0-sp1.aspx#9543314</link><pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 17:51:16 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9543314</guid><dc:creator>Beware the SQL Index property on NAV 5.0 SP1 | Microsoft Share Point</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;PingBack from &lt;a rel="nofollow" target="_new" href="http://microsoft-sharepoint.simplynetdev.com/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-50-sp1/"&gt;http://microsoft-sharepoint.simplynetdev.com/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-50-sp1/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Beware the SQL Index property on NAV 5.0 SP1</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/nav_developer/archive/2009/04/10/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-5-0-sp1.aspx#9545641</link><pubDate>Sat, 11 Apr 2009 20:35:23 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9545641</guid><dc:creator>stryk</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Laura,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;well, I know the SE BLOG about that issue ... My opinion is: with NAV 5.0 it was tried to force some &amp;quot;SQL Theory&amp;quot; which does not really suit the &amp;quot;NAV Reality&amp;quot; ... ;c)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I also commented that to the SE BLOG, but I would appreciate to get your opinion:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I use the &amp;quot;SQL Index&amp;quot; property on large tables (many records) which have many indexes or are heavily used. Here I simply COPY the &amp;quot;Key&amp;quot; content to the &amp;quot;SQL Index&amp;quot; - this re-creates the Index non-unique and without the usually added PK fields, hence, the index gets somewhat smaller (sometime remarkably!), improving its performance but without risking any conflict with the sorting. The &amp;quot;missing&amp;quot; PK fields are not an issue, because the Clustered Index is usually based on the PK, and as with NAV there's nearly always a &amp;quot;Bookmark Lookup&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;Keylookup&amp;quot;) there is no problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;So far I have quite good experiences with that!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;What do you think about that?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;J&amp;#246;rg&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;jstryk@stryk.info&lt;/p&gt;
</description></item><item><title>re: Beware the SQL Index property on NAV 5.0 SP1</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/nav_developer/archive/2009/04/10/beware-the-sql-index-property-on-nav-5-0-sp1.aspx#9546890</link><pubDate>Mon, 13 Apr 2009 14:50:31 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:9546890</guid><dc:creator>lalake</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Jorg,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Well, I really should have emphasized the fact that the problem arises when the fields in the SQL Index vary too much from the Key specification. In the cases that I have worked with, the most common problems are that the fields in the SQL Index are in a different order OR not all Key fields are included, sometimes resuting in a confilict between the Order By and the Where clauses. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In the scenario you are describing, I don't expect you would see this behavior.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Laura &lt;/p&gt;
</description></item></channel></rss>