I have a question regarding database design and size .
I am migrating from several DB2 databases to SQL server. I was going to
create different databases based on application dept or business units
(the way it has been in db2). But my application folks says, they
cannot connect to multiple database or join tables accross databases,
so have all the tables in one database.
If I do that( i hate to do it), the database size will easily be 200 -
250 GB.
1. Is having all the tables in 1 database a good idea, what are the
pros and cons ?
2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Roger1st of all, your application folks dont know what they'r talking about.
You CAN do multi-db joins, and they should be able to connect to multiple
DBs. (are they writing in VB, C++, C#, VB.NET, etc or what ?)
If they dont know how to do that, then they might want to go take a class or
something as it's pretty "101" stuff.
Multiple databases on the same server is not a bad option at all.
further, you should look at this site and learn about large Databases and
maintenance, etc:
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||man I was so aggravated, I forgot to paste my link
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin...scalability.asp
GAJ|||Thanks Greg, Those guys are coding in COBOL, using ES-MTO (a
microfocus engine)- this is a mainframe conversion project. I showed
them that you can add the database name in front of the table name to
do multi database queries (am i right) . But they keep saying they
cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Thanks for link Greg...i appreciate it|||> cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Ideally, their external code would call stored procedures. Then they don't
have to know how you implement the database side. It could be one database
or 200, and you could have a job switch it back and forth between the two
architectures every other Thursday.
Let the developers write the code. This is why you have database people on
staff. :-)|||AMEN My Brother...!
Furthermore if they use ADO.NET and SQL Providers, they can do all the joins
they need.
but I'm not going to even gonna go down that road.
I like Aarons solution much better anyway.
GAJ|||"sql rookie" <anytasks@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112294686.285175.58040@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
> there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
> GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Since no on addressed this:
Backup time should not generally be the criteria here. Recovery time should
be.
As you can do online backups, you can do backups w/o downtime.
Moreover, you can do other things to help with recovery.
Look at filegroup backups... i.e. backup only parts of the DB and recover
parts as required. (BTW, SQL 2005 Enterprise handles this in a BEAUTIFUL
manner...)
Also look at perhaps a weekly full backup and then daily differentials with
transaction log backups as required.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Roger
>
Showing posts with label db2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label db2. Show all posts
Thursday, March 22, 2012
database size and design questions
I have a question regarding database design and size .
I am migrating from several DB2 databases to SQL server. I was going to
create different databases based on application dept or business units
(the way it has been in db2). But my application folks says, they
cannot connect to multiple database or join tables accross databases,
so have all the tables in one database.
If I do that( i hate to do it), the database size will easily be 200 -
250 GB.
1. Is having all the tables in 1 database a good idea, what are the
pros and cons ?
2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Roger
1st of all, your application folks dont know what they'r talking about.
You CAN do multi-db joins, and they should be able to connect to multiple
DBs. (are they writing in VB, C++, C#, VB.NET, etc or what ?)
If they dont know how to do that, then they might want to go take a class or
something as it's pretty "101" stuff.
Multiple databases on the same server is not a bad option at all.
further, you should look at this site and learn about large Databases and
maintenance, etc:
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||man I was so aggravated, I forgot to paste my link
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...calability.asp
GAJ
|||Thanks Greg, Those guys are coding in COBOL, using ES-MTO (a
microfocus engine)- this is a mainframe conversion project. I showed
them that you can add the database name in front of the table name to
do multi database queries (am i right) . But they keep saying they
cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Thanks for link Greg...i appreciate it
|||> cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Ideally, their external code would call stored procedures. Then they don't
have to know how you implement the database side. It could be one database
or 200, and you could have a job switch it back and forth between the two
architectures every other Thursday.
Let the developers write the code. This is why you have database people on
staff. :-)
|||AMEN My Brother...!
Furthermore if they use ADO.NET and SQL Providers, they can do all the joins
they need.
but I'm not going to even gonna go down that road.
I like Aarons solution much better anyway.
GAJ
|||"sql rookie" <anytasks@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112294686.285175.58040@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> 2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
> there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
> GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Since no on addressed this:
Backup time should not generally be the criteria here. Recovery time should
be.
As you can do online backups, you can do backups w/o downtime.
Moreover, you can do other things to help with recovery.
Look at filegroup backups... i.e. backup only parts of the DB and recover
parts as required. (BTW, SQL 2005 Enterprise handles this in a BEAUTIFUL
manner...)
Also look at perhaps a weekly full backup and then daily differentials with
transaction log backups as required.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Roger
>
I am migrating from several DB2 databases to SQL server. I was going to
create different databases based on application dept or business units
(the way it has been in db2). But my application folks says, they
cannot connect to multiple database or join tables accross databases,
so have all the tables in one database.
If I do that( i hate to do it), the database size will easily be 200 -
250 GB.
1. Is having all the tables in 1 database a good idea, what are the
pros and cons ?
2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Roger
1st of all, your application folks dont know what they'r talking about.
You CAN do multi-db joins, and they should be able to connect to multiple
DBs. (are they writing in VB, C++, C#, VB.NET, etc or what ?)
If they dont know how to do that, then they might want to go take a class or
something as it's pretty "101" stuff.
Multiple databases on the same server is not a bad option at all.
further, you should look at this site and learn about large Databases and
maintenance, etc:
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon
|||man I was so aggravated, I forgot to paste my link
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...calability.asp
GAJ
|||Thanks Greg, Those guys are coding in COBOL, using ES-MTO (a
microfocus engine)- this is a mainframe conversion project. I showed
them that you can add the database name in front of the table name to
do multi database queries (am i right) . But they keep saying they
cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Thanks for link Greg...i appreciate it
|||> cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Ideally, their external code would call stored procedures. Then they don't
have to know how you implement the database side. It could be one database
or 200, and you could have a job switch it back and forth between the two
architectures every other Thursday.
Let the developers write the code. This is why you have database people on
staff. :-)
|||AMEN My Brother...!
Furthermore if they use ADO.NET and SQL Providers, they can do all the joins
they need.
but I'm not going to even gonna go down that road.
I like Aarons solution much better anyway.
GAJ
|||"sql rookie" <anytasks@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112294686.285175.58040@.o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com...
> 2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
> there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
> GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Since no on addressed this:
Backup time should not generally be the criteria here. Recovery time should
be.
As you can do online backups, you can do backups w/o downtime.
Moreover, you can do other things to help with recovery.
Look at filegroup backups... i.e. backup only parts of the DB and recover
parts as required. (BTW, SQL 2005 Enterprise handles this in a BEAUTIFUL
manner...)
Also look at perhaps a weekly full backup and then daily differentials with
transaction log backups as required.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Roger
>
database size and design questions
I have a question regarding database design and size .
I am migrating from several DB2 databases to SQL server. I was going to
create different databases based on application dept or business units
(the way it has been in db2). But my application folks says, they
cannot connect to multiple database or join tables accross databases,
so have all the tables in one database.
If I do that( i hate to do it), the database size will easily be 200 -
250 GB.
1. Is having all the tables in 1 database a good idea, what are the
pros and cons ?
2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Roger1st of all, your application folks dont know what they'r talking about.
You CAN do multi-db joins, and they should be able to connect to multiple
DBs. (are they writing in VB, C++, C#, VB.NET, etc or what ?)
If they dont know how to do that, then they might want to go take a class or
something as it's pretty "101" stuff.
Multiple databases on the same server is not a bad option at all.
further, you should look at this site and learn about large Databases and
maintenance, etc:
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||man I was so aggravated, I forgot to paste my link
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.asp
GAJ|||Thanks Greg, Those guys are coding in COBOL, using ES-MTO (a
microfocus engine)- this is a mainframe conversion project. I showed
them that you can add the database name in front of the table name to
do multi database queries (am i right) . But they keep saying they
cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Thanks for link Greg...i appreciate it|||> cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Ideally, their external code would call stored procedures. Then they don't
have to know how you implement the database side. It could be one database
or 200, and you could have a job switch it back and forth between the two
architectures every other Thursday.
Let the developers write the code. This is why you have database people on
staff. :-)|||AMEN My Brother...!
Furthermore if they use ADO.NET and SQL Providers, they can do all the joins
they need.
but I'm not going to even gonna go down that road.
I like Aarons solution much better anyway.
GAJ|||"sql rookie" <anytasks@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112294686.285175.58040@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
> there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
> GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Since no on addressed this:
Backup time should not generally be the criteria here. Recovery time should
be.
As you can do online backups, you can do backups w/o downtime.
Moreover, you can do other things to help with recovery.
Look at filegroup backups... i.e. backup only parts of the DB and recover
parts as required. (BTW, SQL 2005 Enterprise handles this in a BEAUTIFUL
manner...)
Also look at perhaps a weekly full backup and then daily differentials with
transaction log backups as required.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Roger
>
I am migrating from several DB2 databases to SQL server. I was going to
create different databases based on application dept or business units
(the way it has been in db2). But my application folks says, they
cannot connect to multiple database or join tables accross databases,
so have all the tables in one database.
If I do that( i hate to do it), the database size will easily be 200 -
250 GB.
1. Is having all the tables in 1 database a good idea, what are the
pros and cons ?
2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Any input is greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Roger1st of all, your application folks dont know what they'r talking about.
You CAN do multi-db joins, and they should be able to connect to multiple
DBs. (are they writing in VB, C++, C#, VB.NET, etc or what ?)
If they dont know how to do that, then they might want to go take a class or
something as it's pretty "101" stuff.
Multiple databases on the same server is not a bad option at all.
further, you should look at this site and learn about large Databases and
maintenance, etc:
Cheers
Greg Jackson
PDX, Oregon|||man I was so aggravated, I forgot to paste my link
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/scalability.asp
GAJ|||Thanks Greg, Those guys are coding in COBOL, using ES-MTO (a
microfocus engine)- this is a mainframe conversion project. I showed
them that you can add the database name in front of the table name to
do multi database queries (am i right) . But they keep saying they
cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Thanks for link Greg...i appreciate it|||> cannot do it. ES-MTO uses ODBC , ADO.NET to connect to sql server.
Ideally, their external code would call stored procedures. Then they don't
have to know how you implement the database side. It could be one database
or 200, and you could have a job switch it back and forth between the two
architectures every other Thursday.
Let the developers write the code. This is why you have database people on
staff. :-)|||AMEN My Brother...!
Furthermore if they use ADO.NET and SQL Providers, they can do all the joins
they need.
but I'm not going to even gonna go down that road.
I like Aarons solution much better anyway.
GAJ|||"sql rookie" <anytasks@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112294686.285175.58040@.o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 2. If I create this huge database, how can i do maintainance on it ? Is
> there a way, I can backup quickly. My guestimate for backing up a 250
> GB database is around 1-2 hrs, which is not feasible.
Since no on addressed this:
Backup time should not generally be the criteria here. Recovery time should
be.
As you can do online backups, you can do backups w/o downtime.
Moreover, you can do other things to help with recovery.
Look at filegroup backups... i.e. backup only parts of the DB and recover
parts as required. (BTW, SQL 2005 Enterprise handles this in a BEAUTIFUL
manner...)
Also look at perhaps a weekly full backup and then daily differentials with
transaction log backups as required.
> Any input is greatly appreciated.
> Thanks
> Roger
>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Database setup for backup and recovery
I am new to SQLServer but a DB2 DBA.
I want to be able to backup a specific table and restore it. Actually, i may want to backup/restore several tables - a sub-set of tables on the database.
I understand that backup-recovery is at a database level, not a table-file-filrgroup level. Therefore i have to backup-restore a database, but i only want a table.
How do sites handle this. Are many databases created based on backup recovery requirements.
If so, then how do developers know what database tables reside in - given that there are now many databases created to handle recovery requirements. A synonymns/alias/views added ?
tia
glenn
If you put the table on its own filegroup, you can restore just that filegroup/table. Else, you will need to restore the database to a staging db and copy/transfer the table from the staging db to the real db.|||Can i restore a single filegroup to a previous point in time (say 8am), but keep the rest of the database unchanged (say 10am).
Or, does the whole database have to be at the same point in time after a restore?
tia
Database setup for backup and recovery
I am new to SQLServer but a DB2 DBA.
I want to be able to backup a specific table and restore it. Actually, i may want to backup/restore several tables - a sub-set of tables on the database.
I understand that backup-recovery is at a database level, not a table-file-filrgroup level. Therefore i have to backup-restore a database, but i only want a table.
How do sites handle this. Are many databases created based on backup recovery requirements.
If so, then how do developers know what database tables reside in - given that there are now many databases created to handle recovery requirements. A synonymns/alias/views added ?
tia
glenn
If you put the table on its own filegroup, you can restore just that filegroup/table. Else, you will need to restore the database to a staging db and copy/transfer the table from the staging db to the real db.|||Can i restore a single filegroup to a previous point in time (say 8am), but keep the rest of the database unchanged (say 10am).
Or, does the whole database have to be at the same point in time after a restore?
tia
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Database Roles being modified by unknown process
I have two databases on two separate servers, with Merge replication running
between them. DB1 and DB2 both have the same 3 roles I created for user
access. Twice within the last week, the roles on DB2, the subscriber, have
changed removing most of their table permissions, but not all. Does anyone
know of something that could be causing this?
Thanks
Profiler is your friend - yo can trace Grant, Revoke and Deny commands like
all other commands and procedures. Check the "Security Audit Event Classes"
topic in Books OnLine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"kahunaVA" <kahunaVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6A920DFD-EFDC-4D23-8D97-4B51E65F6F40@.microsoft.com...
> I have two databases on two separate servers, with Merge replication
running
> between them. DB1 and DB2 both have the same 3 roles I created for user
> access. Twice within the last week, the roles on DB2, the subscriber,
have
> changed removing most of their table permissions, but not all. Does anyone
> know of something that could be causing this?
> Thanks
between them. DB1 and DB2 both have the same 3 roles I created for user
access. Twice within the last week, the roles on DB2, the subscriber, have
changed removing most of their table permissions, but not all. Does anyone
know of something that could be causing this?
Thanks
Profiler is your friend - yo can trace Grant, Revoke and Deny commands like
all other commands and procedures. Check the "Security Audit Event Classes"
topic in Books OnLine.
Dejan Sarka, SQL Server MVP
Associate Mentor
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"kahunaVA" <kahunaVA@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6A920DFD-EFDC-4D23-8D97-4B51E65F6F40@.microsoft.com...
> I have two databases on two separate servers, with Merge replication
running
> between them. DB1 and DB2 both have the same 3 roles I created for user
> access. Twice within the last week, the roles on DB2, the subscriber,
have
> changed removing most of their table permissions, but not all. Does anyone
> know of something that could be causing this?
> Thanks
Friday, February 24, 2012
database quiescing mode
I do have a question that I searched the book but not found answer. As you
know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
operation?SQL Server has supported quiescing I/Os for a long time (since SQL 7.0 at
least). In SQL2000 Books Online, type Snapshot backup on the Index tab. On
the Microsoft website, search for VDI (virtual device interface). For
instance, here's the SQL2005 VDI specs
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=416f8a51-65a3-4e8e-a4c8-adfe15e850fc&DisplayLang=en.
Third-party tools such as EMC TimeFinder all leverage SQL Server quiesceing
capability when doing snapshot backups.
Linchi
"Rustom" wrote:
> I do have a question that I searched the book but not found answer. As you
> know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
> put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
> providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
> snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
> transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
> feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
> operation?
>
>|||The VSS writer service does that for the Windows Volume Shadow Service in
SQL 2005.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:13B181C1-6F6C-4320-9545-25749A954C2E@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server has supported quiescing I/Os for a long time (since SQL 7.0 at
> least). In SQL2000 Books Online, type Snapshot backup on the Index tab. On
> the Microsoft website, search for VDI (virtual device interface). For
> instance, here's the SQL2005 VDI specs
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=416f8a51-65a3-4e8e-a4c8-adfe15e850fc&DisplayLang=en.
> Third-party tools such as EMC TimeFinder all leverage SQL Server
> quiesceing
> capability when doing snapshot backups.
> Linchi
> "Rustom" wrote:
>> I do have a question that I searched the book but not found answer. As
>> you
>> know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
>> put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
>> providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
>> snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
>> transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
>> feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
>> operation?
>>
know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
operation?SQL Server has supported quiescing I/Os for a long time (since SQL 7.0 at
least). In SQL2000 Books Online, type Snapshot backup on the Index tab. On
the Microsoft website, search for VDI (virtual device interface). For
instance, here's the SQL2005 VDI specs
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=416f8a51-65a3-4e8e-a4c8-adfe15e850fc&DisplayLang=en.
Third-party tools such as EMC TimeFinder all leverage SQL Server quiesceing
capability when doing snapshot backups.
Linchi
"Rustom" wrote:
> I do have a question that I searched the book but not found answer. As you
> know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
> put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
> providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
> snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
> transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
> feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
> operation?
>
>|||The VSS writer service does that for the Windows Volume Shadow Service in
SQL 2005.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior SQL Infrastructure Consultant
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:13B181C1-6F6C-4320-9545-25749A954C2E@.microsoft.com...
> SQL Server has supported quiescing I/Os for a long time (since SQL 7.0 at
> least). In SQL2000 Books Online, type Snapshot backup on the Index tab. On
> the Microsoft website, search for VDI (virtual device interface). For
> instance, here's the SQL2005 VDI specs
> http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=416f8a51-65a3-4e8e-a4c8-adfe15e850fc&DisplayLang=en.
> Third-party tools such as EMC TimeFinder all leverage SQL Server
> quiesceing
> capability when doing snapshot backups.
> Linchi
> "Rustom" wrote:
>> I do have a question that I searched the book but not found answer. As
>> you
>> know Oracle or DB2 has a feature called database quiescing mode, that can
>> put database in such state that transactions are temporarily staged,
>> providing certain time for database snapshot or replication. After the
>> snapshot is done the quiescing mode can be disabled and all paused
>> transactions are committed into database. Does SQL 2005 have similar
>> feature? If not what 3rd party software as you know can mimic the
>> operation?
>>
Friday, February 17, 2012
Database performance improvement
People:
I work with IBM DB2 and there is a tool called REORGCHK and REORG.
It is used to eveluate the status of tables and indexes(REORGCHK) and in case we run the REORG to fix any fragmentation problem in tables and indexes...
The question is Is there something similar in SQL Server?
I have deleted lots of records and looks like after that the performance of the database is not very good.
Thankswhat version of SQLserver?
Sounds like a rebuild of the index may be needed, it can't hurt to rebuild
after a large delete.
At a low level you could run
DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
Via Enterprise (SQLserver 2000) you can create a maintenance plan to cleanup space and indexes. Just run the wizard to create the optimisation job and run it straight away.
Have Fun|||I have SQL 2000 Server.
Can I run the dbcc command during the day??|||Hi,
If you using SQLserver 2000, the easiest solution is to create a maintenance plan to do this periodically eg once per week.
In Enterprise Manager choose the database -> management
right click on database maintenance plans -> choose new plan
Follow the wizard to create an optimisation maintenance plan.
I tend to create a plan for optimisation and integrity checking and a separate one for back of database / logs.
If your database is really under the weather running the DBCC (or a maintenance doing the same thing) would the highest priority. So running during the day is justified.
Have Fun
I work with IBM DB2 and there is a tool called REORGCHK and REORG.
It is used to eveluate the status of tables and indexes(REORGCHK) and in case we run the REORG to fix any fragmentation problem in tables and indexes...
The question is Is there something similar in SQL Server?
I have deleted lots of records and looks like after that the performance of the database is not very good.
Thankswhat version of SQLserver?
Sounds like a rebuild of the index may be needed, it can't hurt to rebuild
after a large delete.
At a low level you could run
DBCC INDEXDEFRAG
Via Enterprise (SQLserver 2000) you can create a maintenance plan to cleanup space and indexes. Just run the wizard to create the optimisation job and run it straight away.
Have Fun|||I have SQL 2000 Server.
Can I run the dbcc command during the day??|||Hi,
If you using SQLserver 2000, the easiest solution is to create a maintenance plan to do this periodically eg once per week.
In Enterprise Manager choose the database -> management
right click on database maintenance plans -> choose new plan
Follow the wizard to create an optimisation maintenance plan.
I tend to create a plan for optimisation and integrity checking and a separate one for back of database / logs.
If your database is really under the weather running the DBCC (or a maintenance doing the same thing) would the highest priority. So running during the day is justified.
Have Fun
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)