sql - Indexing views with a CTE -

So, I have found that SQL Server 2008 does not give you a view with a CTE in the definition, but it does not give you a view What is a good reason for the alter to add with schemabing in the definition of viewing? Does it make sense for some reason, which I am unaware of? I was under the impression that the main purpose of with was to allow you to index any view

new and improved query action improved

 ; Select xx (dot) with x (rx.pat_id, rx.drug_class, count by rx.pat_id, rx.drug_class from Rx group, select x.pat_id, x.drug_class, x.counts, SUM (c.std_cost) )) As claims of claims by the [Healthcare Cost] X as claims of internal claims. Pat_id = x.pat_id group x.pat_id, x.drug_class, x.counts   
 and the code to make   
 
  < Create a unique clustering index [testidxname] on pre>  [dbo]. [MyView] (pat_id asc, drug_class asc, count asc)    P> 
 
 
 
 You can not index a scene with a CTE although  can  have  SCHEMABINDING . Think of it this way. In order to index a scene, it will have to meet the two conditions (and many others): (A) that it is created with  schematic  and (b) that there is no CTE in it To plan, to satisfy this condition,  not  is required to contain CTE.   
 
 I do not believe there is a scenario where having a CTE  and  indexing in one scene will benefit. This is peripheral for your real question, but my instinct is that you are trying to index this scene so that it can be made faster. One indexed view is not going against any questions against base tables any faster - there are restrictions for some reason, and only where they make special use cases, please be careful that all your thoughts are not only visible to the eyes Make an indicator from the "Go fast" button as well as remember that the indexed view requires maintenance so it will not work in any of your workloads. DML also increases the cost of operation which affects the base table.   
 
 Scenebanking  not  is just for indexing sequence, it can also be used on things like UDF, which helps in assessing the assessee , Can be used on ideas and actions to prevent changes in the underlying schema, and in some cases it may improve performance (for example, when no UDF is schema-bound, the adapter will have an implicit DDL A table spool may have to be created to handle changes). So please do not think that it is weird that you can divide a view to the schema, but you can not index it. One view needs to be indexed, but the relationship is not mutual.    
 
 For your specific scenario, I suggest:  
  View view as dbo.PatClassChecking Select pat_id, drug_class, COUNT_BIG (*) as count from dbo.rx group pat_id, drug_class; Create unique client index on DBO.pt Klascount (pet_id, drug_spepe); Select dbo.ClaimSums with SCHEMA as select pat_id, dbo as SUM (c.std_cost) as [Healthcare cost], COUNT_BIG (*). Claims by group; pat_id; Create Unique Client Index on DBEclaims (Pet_ID); Geo   
 Now you can create a non-indexed view which adds one between these two indexed sequences, and this will use the index (you  NOEXPAND  less Version, is not sure):  
  See versus dbo.OriginalViewName with SCHEMABINDING as p.pat_id, p.drug_class, p.counts, c. [Healthcare cost] from dbo. P InNER as PATClassCounts Join dbo.ClaimSums as CP p pat_id = c.pat_id; GO   
 Now, all of them believe that it is appropriate to pre-compile this information - if you run this query frequently, but the data is very modifiable, Then it may not be better indexed view  
 Also note that  see  claim right  from SUM (std_cost)  each  pat_id  +  medicine-class  combination, since it's only collected for  pat_id  I think that might be B  drug_class in   should be part of the criteria to be included in claims  table, but I'm not sure. If that's the case, then I think it might fall into an indexed view.