Post reply

Partitioning and Filegroups

  • February 3, 2012 at 4:27 am

    #263911

    Hi,

    Is it worth having different table partitions and filegroups for indexes and data if all the files are stored in the same RAID set?

    It makes sense having multiple filegroups if you have 2 or more RAID sets to put the index filegroup in one RAID and the data in the other.

    But is it worth having partitioned tables on the same filegroup just to "separate" the historical data?

    Thanks in advance,

    Pedro


    If you need to work better, try working less...

  • February 3, 2012 at 5:25 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • February 3, 2012 at 6:53 am

    #1442396

    Even if you only have on raid set with many spindles do you not get the benfit of easier maintenance of indexes due to the partitioning ?

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:03 am

    #1442401

    The power of partitioned tables & indexes is that the patition scheme based on the partition function can be split across numerous physical files, across numerous physical disks.

    So if you have only one raid set it's not worth using partitioning?

    It will only make it slower due to having to read multiple files on the same disk?

    Thanks,

    Pedro


    If you need to work better, try working less...

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:12 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:14 am

    #1442409

    I have the same scenario where i have a 12 disk raid array (Raid 50) for my sql server , but i have table with over 200 million rows . I thought partitioning them would make it easier for sql to maintain data and indexes.

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:15 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:18 am

    #1442416

    but when we talk about "simple" sata disks (our clients have regular PCs with SQL Server... one disk, one partition, SO + IIS + SQL on the same computer, same disk) the best is not to hava filegroup nor partitioning, right?


    If you need to work better, try working less...

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:18 am

    #1442417

    As stated RAID 50 array with 12 disks.

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:20 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • February 3, 2012 at 7:26 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • February 6, 2012 at 1:45 am

    #1442933

    Hi Stewart , just trying to confirm , are you reffering to all your data striped across 6 physical disks in a single raid array ?

  • February 6, 2012 at 1:54 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

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