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 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

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 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 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

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

Multiple Access databases as data source

I've read already a lot of threads, dealing with several databases on
different servers as data source. They all recommend to use linked servers.
But what, if we have to deal with Access databases?Actually, most advice I've seen is NOT to use linked servers. You can
connect directly via ODBC or OLEDB to Access.
--
Cheers,
'(' Jeff A. Stucker
\
Business Intelligence
www.criadvantage.com
---
"Niklas" <Niklas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7424F35B-C52C-4104-9C6D-91AC0F439898@.microsoft.com...
> I've read already a lot of threads, dealing with several databases on
> different servers as data source. They all recommend to use linked
> servers.
> But what, if we have to deal with Access databases?|||The recommendation for linked servers is if you are trying to join two the
results from two different servers. If you want to do that you need to have
a stored procedure and use temp tables and do the join there (and use linked
servers, note you should use openquery and not the four part naming for
performance reasons). If you are not doing a join then definitely do not use
linked servers. Just set up multiple data sources (shared is best in my
opinion).
--
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Niklas" <Niklas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7424F35B-C52C-4104-9C6D-91AC0F439898@.microsoft.com...
> I've read already a lot of threads, dealing with several databases on
> different servers as data source. They all recommend to use linked
> servers.
> But what, if we have to deal with Access databases?|||Thanks Bruce,
I have to join the results of several servers, unfortunately I've to deal
with Access ...
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
> The recommendation for linked servers is if you are trying to join two the
> results from two different servers. If you want to do that you need to have
> a stored procedure and use temp tables and do the join there (and use linked
> servers, note you should use openquery and not the four part naming for
> performance reasons). If you are not doing a join then definitely do not use
> linked servers. Just set up multiple data sources (shared is best in my
> opinion).
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
> "Niklas" <Niklas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7424F35B-C52C-4104-9C6D-91AC0F439898@.microsoft.com...
> > I've read already a lot of threads, dealing with several databases on
> > different servers as data source. They all recommend to use linked
> > servers.
> > But what, if we have to deal with Access databases?
>
>|||Here is what you can do very easily with Access. In one of your Access
databases just add a link to the table in the other database. When you do a
join Access handles the join. You are better off to use Access for this
(especially if the data is in Access databases) than to create a linked
server in SQL Server.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Niklas" <Niklas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:115ED942-3D21-46B4-AE80-CA93132E4845@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks Bruce,
> I have to join the results of several servers, unfortunately I've to deal
> with Access ...
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" wrote:
>> The recommendation for linked servers is if you are trying to join two
>> the
>> results from two different servers. If you want to do that you need to
>> have
>> a stored procedure and use temp tables and do the join there (and use
>> linked
>> servers, note you should use openquery and not the four part naming for
>> performance reasons). If you are not doing a join then definitely do not
>> use
>> linked servers. Just set up multiple data sources (shared is best in my
>> opinion).
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>> "Niklas" <Niklas@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:7424F35B-C52C-4104-9C6D-91AC0F439898@.microsoft.com...
>> > I've read already a lot of threads, dealing with several databases on
>> > different servers as data source. They all recommend to use linked
>> > servers.
>> > But what, if we have to deal with Access databases?
>>