Michael Maddison
michael at ddisolutions.com.au
Mon May 16 01:53:17 CDT 2005
This is the last resort option, I've never had to really look at it. Are you sure the db server is the very best and it still can't cope with the web traffic? How many processors? How much RAM? How many HDD's? Speed? Has the DB been optimised? Where are the bottlenecks? More hardware is probably cheaper then redesigning the db... YMMV For an interesting discussion on high volume SQL http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.126588.7 cheers Michael M On 13 May 2005 at 9:42, Elam, Debbie wrote: > Has anyone tried using Microsoft's SQL add in: federated databases? > How stable is it? Any quirks? I have a customer asking about using > it and I would like opinions on Microsoft. If there is a superior 3rd > party product please let me know about it any why it is superior too. > Doesn't look like an add-in to me. It's just a technique for distribution your data over several servers. Follow the link on that page to "Partitioning data". It just seems like a long winded way for Microsoft to say that Views made up of UNION queries against identical tables in separate databases are updateable in SQL Server 2000. -- Stuart _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com