Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Partitioning is not something to be undertaken lightly as there can be many subtle performance implications. </p> <p>My first question is are you referring simple to placing larger table objects in separate filegroups (on separate spindles) or are you referring to data partitioning inside of a table object?</p> <p>I suspect that the situation described is an attempt to have the physical storage of certain large tables on different spindles from the rest of the tables. In this case adding the extra overhead of separate databases, losing any ability to enforce referential integrity across databases, and the security implications of enabling cross database ownership chaining does not provide any benefit over using multiple filegroups within a single database. If, as is quite possible, the separate databases you refer to in your question are not even stored on separate spindles but are all stored on the same spindle then you negate even the slight performance benefit you could have gained by physically separating your disk activity and have received absolutely no benefit.</p> <p>I would suggest instead of using additional databases to hold large tables you look into the Filegroup topic in SQL Server Books Online or for a quick review see this article: <a href="http://www.mssqltips.com/tip.asp?tip=1112" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.mssqltips.com/tip.asp?tip=1112</a> .</p> <p>If you are interested in data partitioning (including partitioning into multiple file groups) then I recommend reading articles by Kimberly Tripp, who gave an excellent presentation at the time SQL Server 2005 came out about the improvements available there. A good place to start is this whitepaper: <a href="http://www.sqlskills.com/resources/Whitepapers/Partitioning%20in%20SQL%20Server%202005%20Beta%20II.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.sqlskills.com/resources/Whitepapers/Partitioning%20in%20SQL%20Server%202005%20Beta%20II.htm</a> .</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. POWhat is the best way to partition large tables in SQL Server?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. USJoe Kuemerle
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COSQLTeam.com also has had recent posts about partitioning and automating maintenance: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USDave DuPlantis
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload