You are here: Re: Is it worth partitioning? « MsSQL Server « IT news, forums, messages
Re: Is it worth partitioning?

Posted by Roy Harvey (SQL Server MVP) on 09/25/07 11:21

Three million rows is not considered particularly large these days and
would not generally justify partitioning. I would keep life simple,
without partitioning.

Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT

On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:37:11 -0700, Tommy Hayes
<tommy.hayes@gmail.com> wrote:

>Hello all,
>
>We're currently upgrading to SQL Server 2005 and we're trying to
>figure out if we should partition some of the tables in the database.
>
>Specifically the two largest tables - both have around 1.5 million
>rows and are expected to at least double in size over the lifetime of
>the system. Both have the same type of activity happening to them -
>rows always only being inserted at the end of the table, updates
>always only happening on the last few hundred rows that were inserted,
>and selects happening all over the place. The tables are often joined
>off each other on a key that spans two columns.
>
>We don't do any data import/export, so we would only be interested in
>partitioning if it could give a performance benefit, rather than the
>administrative benefit I've been reading about.
>
>We currently have a RAID10 array. Would people recommend partitioning
>the tables over just using sensible clustered indexes and letting the
>RAID array handle the concurrancy?
>
>Many thanks,
>Tommy.

 

Navigation:

[Reply to this message]


Удаленная работа для программистов  •  Как заработать на Google AdSense  •  England, UK  •  статьи на английском  •  PHP MySQL CMS Apache Oscommerce  •  Online Business Knowledge Base  •  DVD MP3 AVI MP4 players codecs conversion help
Home  •  Search  •  Site Map  •  Set as Homepage  •  Add to Favourites

Copyright © 2005-2006 Powered by Custom PHP Programming

Сайт изготовлен в Студии Валентина Петручека
изготовление и поддержка веб-сайтов, разработка программного обеспечения, поисковая оптимизация