Re: Limits on rows in a table
- From: Erland Sommarskog <esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:12:56 +0000 (UTC)
(chloe.crowder@xxxxx) writes:
We received the following in an email from a third-party supplier (who
naturally has a solution for the problem as described). It sounds like
gibberish to me, but does anyone have any comments?
<quote>
SQL in its current incarnation hits a performance brick wall when a
table contains more than about 75 million rows. This is not a
configuration limit as the table could be grown a lot larger but the
performance issue generates problems for ??????; primarily during
search and retrieval of archived objects; although if the database
engine is being heavily hit for retrieval the archiving process can
slow down as well.
</quote>
SQL [Server] in its current incarnation? Nah, rather the current
incarnation of the application from the supplier hits a brick wall, and
the supplier needs to clean up its act.
OK, a 75-million is no game for kids, and it requires more careful coding
and design than a 750000 row table.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Limits on rows in a table
- From: Stu
- Re: Limits on rows in a table
- References:
- Limits on rows in a table
- From: chloe . crowder
- Limits on rows in a table
- Prev by Date: Re: Declare dynamic Cursor from String
- Next by Date: Re: Declare dynamic Cursor from String
- Previous by thread: Re: Limits on rows in a table
- Next by thread: Re: Limits on rows in a table
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
