> -----Original Message-----
> Yes it does, and the first answer is "over my dead body." If
> anyone is interested in more specifics - I'll be glad to
> continue the discussion.

One of the reasons I didn't follow up to reply's to my original post was
because it was deemed too off topic by those that replied, I am glad you
asked though :-)

From the outset could I also apologise as I am currently using SQL Server in
my work (shameful, I agree), and have just been introduced to clustered
index's, I have only used a clustered index for look up tables, where data
is more or less static. I popped the question as an "out of interest" as I
have seen some performance gains within SQL Server when using clustered
index's.

> 1) that we have a mechanism described by Dmitry that is
> efficient for all indexes, not just a clustered index

OK, btw Dmitry, thanks for the explanation.

> and 2) that clustered indexes work badly unless very well
> tuned in non-multi-generational database, and even worse in a
> multi-generational database.

I can see that in MGA a clustered index would be crap if the data was being
constantly inserted/deleted/updated, but if the data in a table is only used
for lookups would there be no advantage at all?

Either way, its been interesting reading what the experts have to say on
this subject and helping to ameliorate my exiguous knowledge on the inner
workings of FB's Index's

Rgds

Si