Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On

Add to briefcase ««12

Can SQL Server do ‘Big’? Expand / Collapse
Posted Friday, September 20, 2013 9:15 AM


Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, November 21, 2016 6:18 AM
Points: 1,602, Visits: 2,555
Before anyone criticizes design, it's a 3rd party. I only support it I didn't create it.

90% of all running software needs / run into maintenance / support (and this could get higher since the time I got that information)
So most us of fall into this category (maintaining software which pass over several hands already)

Don't be worry, we are almost all into the same situations
Post #1496929
Posted Monday, September 23, 2013 6:42 AM



Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:26 AM
Points: 7,923, Visits: 5,968
I worked for a client that believe that repeatedly stated that their database is the biggest SQL Server installation in Europe.

It isn't.

Unfortunately it lead them to believe that they were "special". Which in turn lead to poor practices and a self-belief that any downtime was due to the extreme nature of their systems. The truth, in my never humble opinion, is that it is a large database, however, their systems are poorly designed and their database poorly maintained leading to use the relatively large size as an excuse.


-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1497356
Posted Monday, September 23, 2013 4:07 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:23 PM
Points: 3,413, Visits: 3,043
There's big by design and big by lack of design.

Big doesn't necessarily mean complex or difficult it really does depend on your use case. For example, the Microsoft Fastrack implementation is great if what you need is a fast scan to satisfy a query on a dimensional mart that has been loaded sequentially. It isn't so great for a large number of joins.

I have seen a 15,000+ table database and it was unwieldy from a human usability perspective. No-one is going to remember what that many tables are for!

remember that some database systems have one database containing multiple schemas where as SQL Server can have many databases with multiple schemas. 15,000 tables across and enterprise doesn't look so big if all you have to work with is 1 database. If it is spread across 100 databases then a 150 table average isn't so bad.

LinkedIn Profile

Newbie on
Post #1497580
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««12

Permissions Expand / Collapse