Performance Issues With Large Tables
Dec 5, 2007
Hi,
I have a table with over 61 million records having a clustered index on an identity column(Primary key). Simple count queries are taking minutes to execute on this table (ex: select count(1) from table1). I have checked the statistics on the primary key which displayed me the histogram having the 39th million record as the Range-hi-key. I updated the statistics on this column and tried requerying, but still it took atleast 5 minutes to give me the count of records in the table. Also, there were no users using the table when I queried. Inserts into this table were working fine. I have other tables in my database with 41 million records having no such issues. Can anyone point me to the problem areas in such scenarios?
Thanks,
Harish
View 6 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Jan 25, 2008
Hi gurus, I'm creating a web application where I will have a large number of tables (between 10k and 20k), this is done for the sake of scalability as tables will be moved to different database servers as the application grows and also for performance (smaller indexes). I'm worried though how having a large number of tables could affect the performance of SQL Server as the application will start on one single database server. I tried to find some resources on that on the internet but couldn't find any.
I would really appreciate if you can give me some advice and if you have any good links that would be great...
View 10 Replies
View Related
Jan 25, 2008
Hi gurus, I'm creating a web application where I will have a large number of tables (between 10k and 20k), this is done for the sake of scalability as tables will be moved to different database servers as the application grows and also for performance (smaller indexes). I'm worried though how having a large number of tables could affect the performance of SQL Server as the application will start on one single database server. I tried to find some resources on that on the internet but couldn't find any.
I would really appreciate if you can give me some advice and if you have any good links that would be great...
Waleed Eissa
http://www.waleedeissa.com
View 9 Replies
View Related
Dec 5, 2007
I have a query that joins two large partitioned tables and depending on the values in the where clause, I can get dramatically different performance results.
The first query completed in around 7s and has 47,000 logical reads.
select mo.monitor_id,
mo.site_id,
mo.testtime,
sum(mo.NumBytes),
sum(mo.DNSTime),
sum(mo.ConnectTime),
sum(mo.FirstByteTime),
sum(mo.ContentTime),
sum(mo.RelocTime)
from monitor_raw mr(nolock), monitor_object mo(nolock)
where mr.monitor_id in (5339, 5341, 5342, 943842, 943866)
and mr.testtime between 'Oct 31 2007 3:00:00:000PM' and 'Nov 30 2007 3:00:00:000PM'
and mo.returncode = 200
and mr.site_id in (101,102,105,109,110,112,115,117,119,122,126,151,132,139,129,135,121,138,143,142,159,148,128,171,176,177,178,111,113,116,118,120,127,133,131,130,174,179,185,205,200,202,203,204,210,211,208,209,212,213,216,199,214,224,225,229,230,232,235,241,245,247,250,254,261,267,264,265,266,268,269)
and mr.escalationlevel = 0
and mr.monitor_id = mo.monitor_id
and mr.testtime = mo.testtime
and mr.site_id = mo.site_id group by mo.monitor_id, mo.site_id, mo.testtime
The second query takes 188s to complete and has 1.8m logical reads. The only difference between the two is the value of the monitor_ids in the where clause.
select mo.monitor_id,
mo.site_id,
mo.testtime,
sum(mo.NumBytes),
sum(mo.DNSTime),
sum(mo.ConnectTime),
sum(mo.FirstByteTime),
sum(mo.ContentTime),
sum(mo.RelocTime)
from monitor_raw mr(nolock), monitor_object mo(nolock)
where mr.monitor_id in (152682, 5339, 5341, 5342, 268080)
and mr.testtime between 'Oct 31 2007 3:00:00:000PM' and 'Nov 30 2007 3:00:00:000PM'
and mo.returncode = 200
and mr.site_id in (101,102,105,109,110,112,115,117,119,122,126,151,132,139,129,135,121,138,143,142,159,148,128,171,176,177,178,111,113,116,118,120,127,133,131,130,174,179,185,205,200,202,203,204,210,211,208,209,212,213,216,199,214,224,225,229,230,232,235,241,245,247,250,254,261,267,264,265,266,268,269)
and mr.escalationlevel = 0
and mr.monitor_id = mo.monitor_id
and mr.testtime = mo.testtime
and mr.site_id = mo.site_id group by mo.monitor_id, mo.site_id, mo.testtime
The two tables have clustered indexes on monitor_id, testtime and site_id. Comparing the execution plan, I can see why there is such a difference in performance. The second query performs a clustered index seek on the monitor_object table starting at the lowest monitor_id, testtime & site_id through the highest monitor_id, testtime & site_id. The first query performs a clustered index seek where the monitor_id, testtime and site_id equals the same values from the monitor_raw table.
My question is, how can I force the second query to use the same execution plan as the first so that I can get better performance?
One possible workaround that I could use is to execute five individual queries, one for each monitor_id and then union the results together but this would require significant code changes to my stored procs.
Thanks,
Tim
View 5 Replies
View Related
Aug 15, 2007
We have a table that is 800GB. We are planning to re-build the clustered index on this table to a different filegroup. The new filegroup and files associated with it will sit on a SAN which will have a 1.5TB allocation. Does anyone have any suggestions in regards to how many files to have associated with the filegroup to provide optimal performance? Apparently we could have 3 LUNS (500gb each), so would 1 file on each LUN provide additional performance as opposed to one file on 1 LUN?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 25, 2007
What are the performance or storage implications of using a large value for NVARCHAR? For example, if I specify a NVARCHAR(4000) column just to cope with the rare case there are strings that long, but have a table full of strings 255 characters long, is the performance identical to specifying an NVARCHAR(255) column? Is there a reason then NOT to specify NVARCHAR(4000) on everything? i.e. does the query optimizer use it?
I know how long a row is and how many rows can fit in a page (4096 bytes) affects performance, but my understanding is that NVARCHAR only stores the characters needed so it wouldn't be affected unless there was actually a longer string. I wanted to know if there are any other considerations to using a large value here.
Also, how does NTEXT compare to using NVARCHAR? I noticed the documentation said it used a new page after 256 characters, which sounds like it's different from how a 4000 byte NVARCHAR would be stored?
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 10, 2004
I have a large amout of dbs (150) on my SQL Server and when using the enterprise manager to do administrational tasks like Backup, Restore etc. it takes 1.5 hour to open the Database folder. Server is 2xP4, 3Gb RAM. Any ideas on how to manage this number of dbs on the same server and instance of SQL.
Cheers!
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 23, 2005
Hi,I am using SQL 2000 and has a table that contains more than 2 millionrows of data (and growing). Right now, I have encountered 2 problems:1) Sometimes, when I try to query against this table, I would get sqlcommand time out. Hence, I did more testing with Query Analyser and tofind out that the same queries would not always take about the sametime to be executed. Could anyone please tell me what would affect thespeed of the query and what is the most important thing among all thefactors? (I could think of the opened connections, server'sCPU/Memory...)2) I am not sure if 2 million rows is considered a lot or not, however,it start to take 5~10 seconds for me to finish some simple queries. Iam wondering what is the best practices to handle this amount of datawhile having a decent performance?Thank you,Charlie Chang[Charlies224@hotmail.com]
View 5 Replies
View Related
Dec 19, 2006
Hi,
I'm testing Mirroing.
1) I have dedicated NIC for Mirroring - 100Mb
There is no issue with the network (file of 25MB goes in 2.5 seconds)
2) I'm issuing the next simple command
Select * into dbo.Table2 from dbo.Table1
3) the size of the table is 25MB
in async mode it takes 3-4 sec (as if it runs only local)
in sync mode it takes 25-29 sec !!!!
WHY ? IS THIS NORMAL ?
is there any configuration i can change ?
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 10, 2006
Hello everybody,
I've got a little problem wich i'm trying to solve since 1-2 years and i hoped it would go away with SQL 2005 - but that wasn't the case :(.
Situation:
I've just bought a new Server containing:
SQL 2005
64 Bit Enviroment
4 GB RAM
2x AMD Opteron 2 GHz Prozeccors (Dual Core)
2x RAID Controllers (RAID 1) containing
1.1 System
1.2 Data
2.1 Transaction Logs
I've created a full-text table containing all the search terms i need to search.
Table build:
RecID - int - Primary Key
SrcID - varchar(30)
ArticleID - int - referring to an original table
SearchField - varchar(150) - Containing the search terms
timestamp - timestamp field
Fulltext index:
RecID as Primary Key
SearchField as indexed field - Wordbreaker: Neutral (containing several languages), Accent sensitivity off
Now i've got different tables imported in here resulting in a table size of ~ 13 million rows.
There is no problem with the performance on this catalog if i search a term wich isn't contained in more than 200-300 recordsets - but if i search for a term wich could occur in 200'000 upwards it gets extremely slow.
On the slow query the first records get in after no time, but until the query finished up to 60 seconds pass.
The problem is that i have to sort by a ranking value wich is stored externally - so i need all results to sort them...
current (debugging) query:
SELECT ArticleID FROM fullTextTable AS ft INNER JOIN CONTAINSTABLE(FullTextCatalog,SearchField,'"term*"') AS ftRes ON ftRes.[KEY]=ft.idEntry
Now if i check in the performance monitor:
As soon as i run the query the 'Avg. Disk Read Queue Length' counter on disk D (SQL Data Files) jumps to the top, until the query has finished.
Almost no read/write activity on C: where the Fulltext is stored...
If i rerun the query, after it finished once successfully - it takes place below 1-2 seconds, would be nice to get that result in first place :).
Does anybody know a workaround to this problem?
View 9 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
I am having performance issues on a SQL query in Access. My query isaccessing and joining several tables (one very large one). The tables arelinked ODBC. The client submits the query to the server, separated byseveral states. It appears the query is retrieving gigs of data from thetable and processing the joins on the client. Is there away to perform moreof the work on the server there by minimizing the amount of extraneous tabledata moving across the network and improving performance (woefully slowabout 6 hours)?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 5, 2008
Dear all,
I'm using SQL Server 2005 Standard Edetion.
I have the following stored procedure that is executed against two tables (RecrodedCalls) and (RecordedCallsTags)
The table RecordedCalls has more than 10000000 Records and RecordedCallsTags is about 7500000 Records
Now the lines marked in baby blue are dynamic (Dynamic where statement) that varies every time this stored procedure is executed, may it contains 7 columns in condetion statement or may it contains 10 columns, or 2 coulmns.....etc
Now I want to create non-clustered indexes on the columns used in the where statement, THE DTA suggests different indexing whenever the where statement changes.
So what is the right way to created indexes, to create one index on all the columns once, or to create separate indexes on each columns, sometimes the DTA suggests 5 columns together at one if I€™m using 5 conditions, I can€™t accumulate all the possible indexes hence the where statement always vary from situation to situation, below the SP:
CREATE TABLE #tempLookups (ID int identity(0,1),Code NVARCHAR(100),NameE NVARCHAR(500),NameA NVARCHAR(500))
CREATE TABLE #tempTable (ID int identity(0,1),TypesCount INT,CallsType NVARCHAR(50))
INSERT INTO #tempLookups SELECT Code, NameE, NameA FROM lookups WHERE [Type] = 'CALLTYPES' ORDER BY Ordering ASC
INSERT INTO #tempTable SELECT COUNT(DISTINCT(RecordedCalls.ID)) As TypesCount,RecordedCalls.CallType as CallsType
FROM RecordedCalls LEFT OUTER JOIN RecordedCallsTags ON RecordedCalls.ID = RecordedCallsTags.CallID
WHERE RecordedCalls.ID <= '9369907'
AND (RecordedCalls.CallDate BETWEEN cast ('01 Jan 1910 00:00:00:000' as datetime ) AND cast ( '01 Jan 2210 00:00:00:000' as datetime ))
AND (RecordedCalls.Duration BETWEEN 0 AND 1000000)
AND RecordedCalls.ChannelID NOT IN('62061','62062','62063','62064','64110','64111','64112','64113','64114','69860','69861','69862','69863','69866','69867','69868')
AND RecordedCalls.ServerID NOT IN('2')
AND RecordedCalls.AgentID NOT IN('1000010000')
AND (RecordedCallsTags.TagID is null OR RecordedCallsTags.TagID NOT IN('100','200'))
AND RecordedCalls.IsDeleted='false'
GROUP BY RecordedCalls.CallType
SELECT IsNull(#tempTable.TypesCount, 0) AS TypesCount, CASE('English')
WHEN 'Arabic' THEN #tempLookups.NameA
ELSE #tempLookups.NameE
END AS CallsType FROM
#tempTable RIGHT OUTER JOIN #tempLookups ON #tempTable.CallsType = #tempLookups.Code
DROP TABLE #tempLookups
DROP TABLE #tempTable
Thanks all,
Tayseer
Any suggestions how to create efficient indexes??!!
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2007
Recently we added a new table into our SQL2000 database specifically to store scanned in images of documents. This new table contains a PK field, a couple of datetime fields, a couple of char(1) fields and one 'image' field.
Before adding this table, the database size was approx 6GB. Six months after adding this new table, the database has grown to 18GB - 11GB of this is due to the scanned in images.
Would this new table affect the SQL performance with regards to accessing other data in the database that has nothing related to the new table?
If so, would moving this new table into it's own database be recommended?
Thanks
Rod
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 25, 2004
Hi,
We currently have a fairly new SQL server 2000 db (currently about 18mb is size) as a backend to an application (Navision). Performance seems to be below what it should be.
The db is increasing quite rapidly in size, with a lot of data scheduled to be loaded onto the db and also more and more shops and users coming onto the system with alot more transactions going onto the db.
The initial setup of the db has the database File properties set to "Automatically grow file" by "30%" and has an unrestricted file growth.
The server that the db sits on is high spec and very large disk space.
Because the database will be expanding alot and thus reaching its maximum space allocation and then performing a 30% increase in size (which I guess affects performance quite a bit??) quite regularly.
Is it best to set the intitial size of the db to a alot bigger size in the first place as we have large disk space availiable and also set the % increase bigger also.
any advice on best performance would be much appreicated.
Regards,
David
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 12, 2008
Hi all
I have a Large log table with large size data(I month only),If I run a query like SELECT * FROM <table_name> Server will go€¦very very slow€¦.
Because of large Data system is going slow€¦..
Please some body helps me with suggestion how get good performance.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Dec 12, 2007
Hi
We are using the SQL Server 2005 Full Text Service. The data is not huge, but the kind of data is that each record is small and there are a large number of records. There are 35 million records now with 11 GB of data and about 1.6 GB of FT catalog on the table. This is expected to grow to at least 10 times the size of this data. The issue is with FTS taking a long time to return results when the number of hits (rows) getting returned from FTS is large for some searches, it takes a very long time. With the same data & catalog, those full text queries for less common words return timely. The nature of the problem doesnt allow us to only have top results. We need all the results. So it’s not about the size of data but the number of results getting returned from FT. (As the catalog is inverted). The machine is dual processor with 4 GB RAM.
I am considering splitting the table and hence the catalog and using multiple servers to do full text searches in smaller catalogs. Is there any other way this issue can be solved ?
If splitting is the only way, can you give me an idea as to what is a statistical/standard limit to the number of search results/cataog size as which FTS gives good results
Thanks in advance
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jul 4, 2006
Hi,
We are processing 60,00, 000 rows(2 GB file) available in a flat file and loading them in to a database tables using OLEDB Destination components. In the data pipeline of an SSIS package we have 1 flat file source reader, 7 look up components(full cache mode), 1 multicast component and 2 OLE DB destinations with fast load option.
We have observed that first 10,00, 000 rows are processed and loaded in to target tables in just 4 minutes time. The second set of 10,00, 000 rows are processed in 15 minutes time. After this for processing each 1,00,000 rows SSIS is taking approximately 8 - 10 minutes time. We are not able to identify the reasons for the unexpected behaviour of SSIS.
We thought that as the input file size is 2 GB SSIS is not able to manage and slowing down over time of execution. We did split the big input file in to 60 small 37 MB (approx) size files. Then we modified the package by adding For-Each loop task to process all the 60 small files and load them in to database server sequentially. Even in this approach also we have identified data loading has slowed down drastically after processing 13 files.
In order to verify is there any problem with reading source file or transformation, we have replaced OLEDB destinations component with Flat File destinations. With Flat file destination the time taken for processing rows is very constant. For every 8 minutes package is able to process 10,00,000 rows and write them in to the destination files. So, there is no problem with the with either Look up components or flat file source reader.
We are sure that target database server is in same state/condition from the starting to the end of package execution. The client box in which we are running the package is having 1 GB RAM. During package execution time the CPU usage is at 30 % and PF usage is 580 MB. SP1 is also installed on both Client and Server.
Does any one have clue what is causing slow down of data load over the time of package execution?
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jul 12, 2001
We currently have a data warehouse running on SQL 7.0, SP2. One of our primary fact tables is now well over 155 million rows in it. The table is not very wide, as it only contains 17 columns, most of which are defined as integers. The entire database is only 20 GB.
The issue is that the loads from the staging table to this fact table have significantly deteriorated over the last month or so, dropping from over 400 transactions per second to around 85. We drop all the indexes on the fact table before we load the data into it.
Are there issues with a manageable table size in SQL 7.0 that we need to be concerned about? And should we consider partitioning the table into several smaller tables and join them with a "union all" view?
I really need to get this performance issue resolved, as our IT support vendor is pushing us to port the data warehouse to UDB because they tell us that SQL server is not scalable enough to handle this volume of data.
Thanks for any help you can provide.
George M. Parker
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 10, 2000
Hi,
How can i partition the large tables so that the insert and updates which iam doing on the tables take less time.
I want to know how can i partition large tables and if i do that how is that the performance is going to be increased.
Thanks.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Mar 13, 2001
How can I find largest 5 or 10 tables in a database?
Thanks in advance
Chan
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 7, 2007
Hi there,i am having some problem related to SQL server........ Actually i am having a table called ZipCodes that have around 80,000 rows... and the size of the table is around 100 MB...... and my table is now on web Server,. now my problem is that when i fire some query that needs to go through whole of the table then it estimated time to execute the query comes to be 13 seconds and the corsor threshold is set to 7 seconds (and i can't change that)....... so the SQL server cancels the query to be fired........Now i need some Methodology/Technique through which i can search Large Tables with minimum calculations in minimum Time............(Any Ideas)....
View 3 Replies
View Related
Mar 19, 2001
Is it possible to compress the large tables in the database,
like COMPRESS, ARCHIVE options we use to reduce the size of files
stored on any operating system.
I know there is a difference between the file stored on disk and the table created in the database, but currently I am facing space problems wherein, I have to manage my database within the space available, so please advice me if the option is available in SQL Server 6.5 or 7.
I will be happy if I get the solution immediatly as currently I am facing this problem and waiting for your reply.
Thank you
Amol
View 1 Replies
View Related
Feb 12, 2008
I am fairly new to SQL, so please forgive me if my question is a bit elementary. I need to pull two individual tables out of a massive DB into a new DB for testing.
Thanks for the help.
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 15, 2008
I'm in the midst of a long file conversion job. Today I found that one of the tables (converted from csv) to be 6.7 million records. My sql script which I use to reconfigure the weird original date format, into something the rest of the planet uses, times out due to the size.
Does anyone please know of a file utility to automagically split sql server 2005 tables for later re-combining once my scripts have successfully completed their task on the smaller tables?
View 7 Replies
View Related
Nov 14, 2007
I am making a warehouse managment system. The system will cotain much data, but only a small portion of the data will be accessed frequently. Most of the data will only be accessed seldomly, but the customer wants to keep all historic data (just in case they should need it sometime). I have figured I need to partion the tables somehow to keep what is fresh in one place, and historical data in another place. What is the best way to do this? I am thinking about making historical tables. For example I can have a table named PickList and another table named PickListHistorical. When a picklist is processed/complete I can move it over to the PicklistHistorical table, but when the users need to search for a specific picklist I have to look in both tables. I can ofcourse create a view for this to make it transparant. Sql server 2005 introduced some automatically partioning. Will it be better to use this than create my own historic tables? If so, can you please tell me how I do it?
Thank you!
View 11 Replies
View Related
Oct 19, 2007
I've successfully created SSIS packages where I compare two tables in different databases on different servers. However, this is good enough to compare hundreds of thousands of records quickly. The process becomes a huge performance problem when trying to compare table differences when I'm looking at tables that each contain tens of millions of records.
One database is on a SQL 2005 box and the other DB is SQL 7.0 so the lookup component fails for this type of SQL Server. I've been implementing merge joins and conditional components to do my standard table comparisons.
Is there another way to implement this process or maybe partition it somehow to take pieces of the table at a time and compare them? I'm open to ideas.
View 11 Replies
View Related
Jan 9, 2008
I'm using DataAdapters with my SQL database with the intention of all the SELECT, UPDATE, INSERT, DELETE commands to be automatically generated.One table is huge so I'm wondering is it more efficient to "SELECT Top(1) * FROM hugetable" instead of "SELECT * FROM hugetable" in order to facilitate the generation of commands.I hope this isn't too confusing.Thanks,Geoff
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 10, 2008
I have 4 tables with the respective amount of records
1) 6755
2) 2021
3) 2021
4) 355
They all have the same columns. However, they need to be seperate, or at least when I query them. I'll be accessing this database via the web. i was first afraid that a large database would cause major slow down when accessing the db. So I broke it up into 4 tables. If I combined all 4 tables into one large table and just had a column that differentiated the 4, how significant would be the change in speed when accessing the table? It's not a big deal to keep them seperate, its just that when I have to add or remove a column from one table I have to remove it from all the tables. Furthermore, I'm using a module from DEVEXPRESS, don't know if anyone has heard of it, but when you use a gridview, it loads up the entire table even though your paging (which I think is retarded), so for that reason I was afraid it would slow up my access to the db. Any thoughts?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 29, 2000
We are inserting into a table, which includes an identity primary key column. When the table gets really large (i.e. 1.5 million records), the performance of the inserts reduce.
I noticed that when we insert into the table an exclusive lock on the table is obtained. Do inserts into tables with identities always lock the table?
Given the table size is unavoidable, does anyone have a suggestion to improve the performance?
Thanks,
Matt
View 6 Replies
View Related
Aug 4, 2005
I have a few hundred users, maybe a dozen or two active at any given time, accessing the same database via ASP. The database has many tables, one being a very large orders table with a few million records, in which I have created a view against. A view only because I need to allow the user to filter quite extensively against the results. The users typically only need to view records for the last 30 days and results for each user might be five thousand records or less.
My question is this. Would I be better off writing each user's resultset to a temp table for that user's session and allow the filtering and sorting by the user go against that temp table and increase my hardware requirements to accomodate that. Possibly to the point of creating a database cluster. OR would I be better off leaving it as is where each users uses the same view.
FYI...each user may need visibility to only a hand full of fields, but over all the view must maintain many fields.
Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Dave
View 2 Replies
View Related
Nov 1, 2007
I have the following table structure:
tableA (~85,000 rows) primary key = [colA,colB]
tableB (~850,000 rows) primary key = [colA,colC]
tableC (~120,000,000 rows) primary key = [colA,colB,colC]
IMPORTANT: colC is DATETIME
For a SET of rows in tableA (about 50,000) I need to pull the MOST RECENT (given a date) corresponding values from tables B and C. The only way I can think of doing this is the following:
SELECT tableA.colA
,(SELECT TOP 1 colX FROM tableB WHERE colA = tableA.colA AND colC <= @INPUTDATE ORDER BY colC desc)
,(SELECT TOP 1 colY FROM tableB WHERE colA = tableA.colA AND colC <= @INPUTDATE ORDER BY colC desc)
,... --some more columns from tableB
,(SELECT TOP 1 colX FROM tableC WHERE colA = tableA.colA AND colB = tableA.colB AND colC <= @INPUTDATE ORDER BY colC desc)
,(SELECT TOP 1 colY FROM tableC WHERE colA = tableA.colA AND colB = tableA.colB AND colC <= @INPUTDATE ORDER BY colC desc)
,... --some more columns from tableC
FROM tableA
WHERE tableA.colX = 'some criteria'
Is there any other way anyone can suggest? Unfortunately, because tableC is so large, the disk IO (I think) causes this query to take over an hour. (If I had monster RAM and super fast disk this wouldn't be as big an issue, but that's not an option right now )
Thanks in advance!
View 7 Replies
View Related
Jan 2, 2003
What is the best procedure/sequence to reduce some tables containing large number of rows of
a SQL 2000 server?
The idea is first to check which tables grow extremely fast (all statistics, user or log tables), reduce the table
according to the number of months the user wishes to keep in the table.
As a second step backup remaining rows of table as txt files on harddisk (using DTS), UPDATE STATISTICS and re-indexing reduced table.
Run DTS Package every month once (delete oldest month and backup newest month) and do the same as above to keep size of tables adequate.
What is a fast way to reduce number of rows of a large table - the following example produces an error (timeout expired) of my
ADO connection when executing:
SET @str = 'DELETE FROM ' + @ProcessTable + ' WHERE ' + @SelectedColumn + ' < DATEADD (m,' +' -' +
@KeepMonthsInDatabase + ',
+ GETDATE())'
EXEC (@str)
Adding ConnectionTimout = 0 did not help unfortunately.
What is the best way to re-index the table just maintained?
Thanks
mipo
View 2 Replies
View Related
Mar 8, 2014
We are having very big tables in TBS and wanted to setup a strategy for index maintenance.
View 3 Replies
View Related
