and Y drive.
Both X and Y drive have enough free space.
So my question is ,
Is there a possibility where a table i.e. its data and index pages may be
shared across these 2 files ? If so, would there be a performance
degradation to such a setup ?
I am using SQL 2000
ThanksThere is much more than a possibility that data is spread across the files.
Tables and indexes are placed on filegroups, not files, and if the filegroup
has multiple files, SQL Server will always spread the data evenly (or it
will attempt to make it as even as possible) across all the files in the
filegroup.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OOaa#tgVDHA.1928@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> We have the Primary filegroup thats tied to 2 physical files situated on X
> and Y drive.
> Both X and Y drive have enough free space.
> So my question is ,
> Is there a possibility where a table i.e. its data and index pages may be
> shared across these 2 files ? If so, would there be a performance
> degradation to such a setup ?
> I am using SQL 2000
> Thanks
>|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0286_01C355EB.275AE650
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Most likely, your tables/indexes are spread across both files. Since =the files are on two different drives, you will likely see a performance =benefit.
-- Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:OOaa#tgVDHA.1928@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We have the Primary filegroup thats tied to 2 physical files situated on =X
and Y drive.
Both X and Y drive have enough free space.
So my question is ,
Is there a possibility where a table i.e. its data and index pages may =be
shared across these 2 files ? If so, would there be a performance
degradation to such a setup ?
I am using SQL 2000
Thanks
--=_NextPart_000_0286_01C355EB.275AE650
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
Most likely, your tables/indexes are =spread across both files. Since the files are on two different drives, you will =likely see a performance benefit.
-- Tom
---T=homas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL =Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql
"Hassan"
--=_NextPart_000_0286_01C355EB.275AE650--|||So a table thats spread across 2 drives and I query from it, wouldnt there
be some performance hit maybe. It may be faster to read from one drive as
opposed to 2 drive as in different RAID Channels. and then aggregating them
..dont u think ?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:eLJD#ygVDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Most likely, your tables/indexes are spread across both files. Since the
files are on two different drives, you will likely see a performance
benefit.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OOaa#tgVDHA.1928@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We have the Primary filegroup thats tied to 2 physical files situated on X
and Y drive.
Both X and Y drive have enough free space.
So my question is ,
Is there a possibility where a table i.e. its data and index pages may be
shared across these 2 files ? If so, would there be a performance
degradation to such a setup ?
I am using SQL 2000
Thanks|||This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--=_NextPart_000_0062_01C35604.25C48580
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
No. If you have 2 spindles, you potentially can get twice the =throughput than having only one. This is well known.
-- Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
.
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message =news:eMXEgTiVDHA.2024@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
So a table thats spread across 2 drives and I query from it, wouldnt =there
be some performance hit maybe. It may be faster to read from one drive =as
opposed to 2 drive as in different RAID Channels. and then aggregating =them
..dont u think ?
"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:eLJD#ygVDHA.384@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Most likely, your tables/indexes are spread across both files. Since =the
files are on two different drives, you will likely see a performance
benefit.
--
Tom
---
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Columnist, SQL Server Professional
Toronto, ON Canada
www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql
"Hassan" <fatima_ja@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OOaa#tgVDHA.1928@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
We have the Primary filegroup thats tied to 2 physical files situated on =X
and Y drive.
Both X and Y drive have enough free space.
So my question is ,
Is there a possibility where a table i.e. its data and index pages may =be
shared across these 2 files ? If so, would there be a performance
degradation to such a setup ?
I am using SQL 2000
Thanks
--=_NextPart_000_0062_01C35604.25C48580
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
&
No. If you have 2 spindles, you =potentially can get twice the throughput than having only one. This is well known.
-- Tom
----Thomas A. =Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBASQL Server MVPColumnist, SQL Server ProfessionalToronto, ON Canadahttp://www.pinnaclepublishing.com/sql">www.pinnaclepublishing.com=/sql.
"Hassan"
--=_NextPart_000_0062_01C35604.25C48580--
No comments:
Post a Comment