Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

3
  • While I acknowledge and agree with the normalization practices you are describing, this table contains "snapshots" in time. The problem is that referenced values can be changed but these records cannot. So while 5 may be more efficient than 'windows', 5 may not always refer to 'windows' but this record must always reflect 'windows'. Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 14:08
  • Also, I DO have a clustered index defined (the primary key). It is just not involved in this query. Given that only one clustered index is allowed on a table, unclustered indexes are the only remaining option. Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 14:24
  • You could handle the history of the changes in the lookup table. Create new lookups to add new values to the system. Make sure to add datestamps as well to reflect when the changes took place. As for the clustered index, they are used in every query behind the scenes. Each non-clustered index stores the clustering key in order to point back to the original record. It would help if you showed the table definition. Commented Sep 19, 2017 at 18:01