Francisco Tapia
fhtapia at gmail.com
Tue Sep 14 13:11:18 CDT 2004
When the drives are configured as Raid 5, I understand that it improves read performance, which you will you've mentioned this db would be doing mostly. You never mentioned if these drives ere Raid 5 or not. On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 11:47:20 -0400, John W. Colby <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> wrote: > In the quest to get sufficient storage to do the nVLDB bulk mail database I > split the database into 5 containers, 4 for storage and one for the log > file. Understand that this is still to this point, and likely will remain > just a single table. Does anyone understand the usage of database files > well enough to tell me whether splitting it into multiple pieces like this > causes performance degradation or enhancement? I have read that using > different files for different tables can enhance performance, but what about > where it is all just a single table? > > In the end I may need to leave it as multiple files since processing such as > adding indexes can temporarily inflate the files by almost double. When I > am done they shrink back down nicely but during processing they get big. > > BTW, as to the actual size of the database (one table, 164 million records, > 660 fields, 3000+ bytes / record) - it used 4 files of ~40 gbytes after > shrinking. I added in the PK (autonumber) and indexed the state code field > and ended up with 2 files of 40g and 2 files of 86g after shrinking. So the > indexes added a LOT of size to the database. > > John W. Colby > www.ColbyConsulting.com > > _______________________________________________ > dba-SQLServer mailing list > dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com > http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver > http://www.databaseadvisors.com > > -- -Francisco <a href="http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliates&id=0&t=86"><img alt="Get Firefox!" title="Get Firefox!" src="http://spreadfirefox.com/community/images/affiliates/Buttons/125x50/takebacktheweb_125x50.png"/></a>