I cite the overhead on the database server to maintain a table in physical order (which is what a clustered index is) on tables that are heavily transactioned. On performance-sensitive tables that are heavily loaded with inserts and updates, the heuristic does not apply.

Across the OLTP --> OLAP spectrum, what you say is true at the OLAP end, and progressively gets weaker as we get to the OLTP end, especially at higher volumes.

Thus "All tables should have a clustered index" is wrong. It's an engineering absurdity.

You seem to think I don't know what I'm talking about. All I'm doing is challenging the one-dimensional heuristics you are inventing or parroting without really thinking about (or properly qualifying) the extent of the problem space to which the statement applies.

**--** Steve

>Steve..
>
>I cite page 247 of Inside SQL Server 7. I did'nt want you to think I pulled this out of thin air...
>
>With that in mind, the only tables that would not need a clustered index would be ones that would not participate in queries - I suppose. At some level, every table participates in a query - to one degree or another...
>
>The advice is that if your table only has 1 index, it should be clustered.
>
>I am sure you will find something that disputes this. Just know that I have at least, some authority on my side of the argument.
>
>A lot of times Steve, you go onto to disagree, but don't cite authority for your opinion. If it is your opinon, fine, but state that.
>
>
>
>
>>>> Every table in SQL Server should have a clustered index
>>
>>Er, no <s>.
>>
>>I specifically don't want to go there. Just know that I know this to be an incorrect general heuristic.
>>
>>**--** Steve