>Larry,
>
>I didn't mean to suggest that any performance difference would crop up using a non-clustered index without a clustered index. I was simply pointing out that a non-clustered index would be far less efficient than a clustered index.
>

Okay Travis, I'll bite. How do you determine better efficiency if not via better performance? It's not like we can compare the wear and tear on a piston under two different conditions.

I realize the performance boost wouldn't be apparent in all cases. For instance, when the number of rows is relatively low, it may not be. However, at some point, if the process is more efficient, it must translate into better performance.