Maintain separate table via trigger vs. indexed view

Hello,
I have a table LargeTable in many columns and many rows. However, I also
need to have a small subset of the rows in LargeTable and only data from
small set of columns; call it SmallTable.
SmallTable gets read very often. So basically I've been using trigger on
LargeTable to watch for any change there to populate the SmallTable.
However, I realized that an indexed view can replace SmallTable.
In general, which one would be a better design in term of performance? I
know that indexed view can be more elegant but I'm interested in
performance. thanks!"Zester" <zeze@.nottospam.com> wrote in message
news:OaN3Tf3BIHA.5360@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I have a table LargeTable in many columns and many rows. However, I also
> need to have a small subset of the rows in LargeTable and only data from
> small set of columns; call it SmallTable.
> SmallTable gets read very often. So basically I've been using trigger on
> LargeTable to watch for any change there to populate the SmallTable.
> However, I realized that an indexed view can replace SmallTable.
> In general, which one would be a better design in term of performance? I
> know that indexed view can be more elegant but I'm interested in
> performance. thanks!
>
>
What makes you think this is a candidate for an indexed view? You could
create an ordinary view and put a relevant nonclustered index on the base
table. That way you won't incur the same write overhead that an indexed view
has. In SQL Server 2005 you can also include non-key columns in a
nonclustered index.
--
David Portas|||the LargeTable gets read even more often than the SmallTable and LargeTable
serves the main feature of our product. Writing to it is not often but does
occur - most likely only to the columns that have nothing to do with the
dataset needed for SmallTable. The feature using SmallTable is minor, so we
don't want it to interfere with the main feature that needs LargeTable.
"David Portas" <REMOVE_BEFORE_REPLYING_dportas@.acm.org> wrote in message
news:uKBFF$3BIHA.3564@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Zester" <zeze@.nottospam.com> wrote in message
> news:OaN3Tf3BIHA.5360@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Hello,
>> I have a table LargeTable in many columns and many rows. However, I also
>> need to have a small subset of the rows in LargeTable and only data from
>> small set of columns; call it SmallTable.
>> SmallTable gets read very often. So basically I've been using trigger on
>> LargeTable to watch for any change there to populate the SmallTable.
>> However, I realized that an indexed view can replace SmallTable.
>> In general, which one would be a better design in term of performance? I
>> know that indexed view can be more elegant but I'm interested in
>> performance. thanks!
>>
> What makes you think this is a candidate for an indexed view? You could
> create an ordinary view and put a relevant nonclustered index on the base
> table. That way you won't incur the same write overhead that an indexed
> view has. In SQL Server 2005 you can also include non-key columns in a
> nonclustered index.
> --
> David Portas
>