July 18, 2003 at 7:25 am
Can anyone please let me know if it will make a significant difference in performance having table on one filegroup and index on the other.which is better having both on same filegroup or better on 2 diff one. ay help will be appreciated
TIA
July 18, 2003 at 7:31 am
Hi ishaan99,
quote:
Can anyone please let me know if it will make a significant difference in performance having table on one filegroup and index on the other.which is better having both on same filegroup or better on 2 diff one. ay help will be appreciated
I think, it will only make a difference if you can split on separate harddisks.
Cheers,
Frank
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
July 18, 2003 at 7:46 am
It depends. How large your table is? Do you have separate I/O and raid set for each filegroup? Is this table more on read or read-write heavily? Are the indexes created properly for queries? How many database files your database have and how do you allocated them in disks? Have you monitored physical I/O and already seen some problems?
July 24, 2003 at 3:11 am
The optimal environment is if you have plenty of disks to put the system, tempdb, logs, data and indexes on different physical disk arrays. you could even partition your data on separate disks depending on your database design. the overal best performance for the data and the index disk is RAID10 and for log and tempdb RAID1 because the latter are used mostly sequentially.
But all those advices are valid if your database is quite huge (over 50-100 GB).
below that size you wouldn't experience any performance gain.
A proper database design and indices as well as fine SQL queries are much more importants
Bye
Gabor
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply