Post reply

Partitioned Tables

  • February 25, 2013 at 2:27 am

    #97000

    i have one table it contains 30 million records, Now I have partitioned the Table, I could not find much difference in the data retrieval speed.

  • February 25, 2013 at 2:32 am

    #1590715

    Just by partitioning we cannot be sure to get performance benifit.

    You should look at your queries and execution plans and see partition elimination is happening.

    look at your frequent / long running queries and share the execution plan if you need further help

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Roshan Joe

    Jeff Moden -Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help[/url]

  • February 25, 2013 at 2:41 am

    #1590717

    https://www.simple-talk.com/sql/database-administration/gail-shaws-sql-server-howlers/

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • February 25, 2013 at 3:42 am

    #1590733

    Thanks for updating,

    But, I have duplicate values in date column,

  • February 25, 2013 at 4:49 am

    #1590746

    i go through the link

    it is really fun !!, After partitioned, i observed it is time taken in Partitioned tables compared "Un Partitioned" Table.

    Can you please help on this, if any thing i missed here

  • February 25, 2013 at 4:54 am

    #1590751

    munnaonly (2/25/2013)

    it is really fun !!, After partitioned, i observed it is time taken in Partitioned tables compared "Un Partitioned" Table.

    Can you please help on this, if any thing i missed here

    See the article I referenced.

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • February 25, 2013 at 10:55 pm

    #1591026

    Yes, i referred the article, but i haven't see difference, is any other setting there ?

  • February 26, 2013 at 3:11 am

    #1591087

    munnaonly (2/25/2013)

    Yes, i referred the article, but i haven't see difference, is any other setting there ?

    Errr... the entire first section of that article explains why partitioning does not get you an automatic performance improvement and what the point of partitioning is. What 'other setting' are you looking for?

    Gail Shaw
    Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
    SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

    We walk in the dark places no others will enter
    We stand on the bridge and no one may pass

  • February 26, 2013 at 11:40 pm

    #1591399

    Column_nameType

    Column1bigint

    Column2bigint

    Column3varchar

    Column4bigint

    Column5varchar

    Column6bigint

    Column7varchar

    Column8bigint

    Column9varchar

    Column10bigint

    Column11varchar

    Column12bigint

    Column13varchar

    Column14varchar

    Column15bigint

    Column16bigint

    Column17bigint

    Column18numeric

    Column19datetime

    I Have Partitioned on cloumn 19, below are the space used details for the 'Table1' and partition details

    name rowsreserved data index_sizeunused

    Table1 130569882512632 KB 2503320 KB8800 KB512 KB

    name partition_number rows

    Table11 2417

    Table12 2665897

    Table13 2676153

    Table14 2711158

    Table15 2688720

    Table16 2312546

    Table17 97

    Table18 0

    Table19 0

    Table110 0

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply