Joshua Enfield

Adding the index results in times going from 70ms average to 5.8 ms including all columns and 7ms with just index and no covered columns (5 trials; Client statistics). So it seems covering all is faster. So I suppose I just need to consider if it is worth the write cost (yes), and memory cost (probably). I'd still like some comfort that I'm basically creating a copy of the table indexed in a different way and that is ok.

Yes. Client Stats are showing an average of 70 ms with around 8,000 records in the SlideshowImages table and 9,000 rows in the other. That 70 ms is expensive when considered against the request time (web application). I'll get back to you after adding the suggested index by SMS.

@ypercube No. There are currently no indexes except for the Primary one.

@Zane It makes sense that would it would benefit the query :) But this seems like a questionable thing to cover the entire table. Are my worries unfounded? Should I should treat it just like I would when creating a covering index against fewer columns?

@AaronBertrand For better or worse, in this case with the way the data is mapped by the application, yes.

Query Added along with Actual Execution Plan

Am I the impersonator or the impersonated ;)

@josh it seems I am getting chat notifications for your replies other Josh lol

me too

@Josh on occasion ^^ :O and yea the effect it pretty slick, they did good on this design.

When people exit the room and their avatars drag down and to the left as they fade...totally just thought I had a bug on my screen (out of the corner of my eye.)

^^

ah

Why doesn't SO have a chat? Or are server related issues more of a chattable area?