sargable comes from combining search and argument meaning your where clauses will be able to use the index (will speed up your retrieval)


“I sense many useless updates in you... Useless updates lead to fragmentation... Fragmentation leads to downtime...Downtime leads to suffering..Fragmentation is the path to the darkside.. DBCC INDEXDEFRAG and DBCC DBREINDEX are the force...May the force be with you" -- http://sqlservercode.blogspot.com/

Sargable was IBM's database slang term that got hijacked into many different directions. If you ask IBM what it is they say one thing, while MS uses it in different ways. (just my opinion I wait to see an actual definition in a dictionary)

oops we hijack this thread in yet ANOTHER direction, roflmao.... ;)

I work on Oracle, MS, Sybase, MSSQL. Don't matter much to me, I just like the Database work. Access is perhaps the most prevalent work available but I have my standards. MS-SQL is generally good enough but its sadly not advancing hardly at all compared to Oracle or even free Postgresql. I prefer Oracle work when I can. But if I can't get work on a sky scraper then I go work building sheds, lol. It all depends on the pay. Open source right now generally pays the least so I don't get that much Postgresql work or Mysql for that matter. Who ever really does the exact type of work they want to do.

I agree with rstelma's post about replicating the data and reporting off the replicated version but that creates managment issues, doubles storage requirements, etc. My point is mainly to say that the MS solution on locking is kludge management. If you believe you can prevent deadlocking try it on a terrabyte database that is in full use on MS-SQL. Where people are doing large selects combined with inserts and updates. Not the MS terabyte marketing database where they claim they have no scalability issues. Then if you look at what they did they strung a bunch of federated servers together that only retrieve data (select only) and said it was the same as what Oracle, DB and the rest can do. Lets face it MS don't handle large volume and you cant protect yourself from deadlocks once your database gets large enough. MS does what you suggest, break the database into smaller pieces small enought that MS can handle. But when you do that how many MS-SQL licenses do you need to buy?