When dealing with a vldb, multiple filegroups are obviously a necessity from
an admin point of view.. ..but from a performance p.o.v. is there any point
at which you can have too many filegroups? - Will a high number of filegroups
on a single array actually degrade performance?
I'm using sql 2005, and I'm looking at partitioning a table, the obvious
column to partition on would mean the table would end up on 100+ filegroups..
...this would mean we would have 30+ filegroups per array and I'm worried this
would cause us more problems than benefits..
TIA BenUK
Depands on what kind of RAID structure you use/Have.
SQL2005 is Scalable enough to give you the freedom of partitioning.
you can place diff accessed table on diff Raid(if available) Static
Tables ca be on RAID 5 and/or non clustered indexes can be on a RAID5
is they re static , i they are highly updated use RAID1.
Distribution of Filegroups according to their access patterns and
appropriately using RAID's, shoule be the main concern.
Maninder
MCDBA
Showing posts with label froman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label froman. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Multiple Filegroups
When dealing with a vldb, multiple filegroups are obviously a necessity from
an admin point of view.. ..but from a performance p.o.v. is there any point
at which you can have too many filegroups? - Will a high number of filegroup
s
on a single array actually degrade performance?
I'm using sql 2005, and I'm looking at partitioning a table, the obvious
column to partition on would mean the table would end up on 100+ filegroups.
.
..this would mean we would have 30+ filegroups per array and I'm worried th
is
would cause us more problems than benefits..
TIA BenUKDepands on what kind of RAID structure you use/Have.
SQL2005 is Scalable enough to give you the freedom of partitioning.
you can place diff accessed table on diff Raid(if available) Static
Tables ca be on RAID 5 and/or non clustered indexes can be on a RAID5
is they re static , i they are highly updated use RAID1.
Distribution of Filegroups according to their access patterns and
appropriately using RAID's, shoule be the main concern.
Maninder
MCDBA
an admin point of view.. ..but from a performance p.o.v. is there any point
at which you can have too many filegroups? - Will a high number of filegroup
s
on a single array actually degrade performance?
I'm using sql 2005, and I'm looking at partitioning a table, the obvious
column to partition on would mean the table would end up on 100+ filegroups.
.
..this would mean we would have 30+ filegroups per array and I'm worried th
is
would cause us more problems than benefits..
TIA BenUKDepands on what kind of RAID structure you use/Have.
SQL2005 is Scalable enough to give you the freedom of partitioning.
you can place diff accessed table on diff Raid(if available) Static
Tables ca be on RAID 5 and/or non clustered indexes can be on a RAID5
is they re static , i they are highly updated use RAID1.
Distribution of Filegroups according to their access patterns and
appropriately using RAID's, shoule be the main concern.
Maninder
MCDBA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)