I am using SQL Server 2000, and I backup and restore my LIVE database to a new backup server every night. Do you have any ideas as to why my restored database runs slow when compared to the LIVE database? Do I need to rebuilding indexes? Is there any way of backing up indexes as part of the main backup?
Software/Hardware used:
ASKED:
July 2, 2008 3:52 PM
UPDATED:
July 4, 2008 8:30 AM
Check out my SQL Server blog “SQL Server with Mr Denny” for more SQL Server information.
I would expect the performance of the new database (recovered from backup) to be better than the Live database because the indexes would have been built fresh – i.e. no fragmentation etc, and it would not be handling the load of the Live database. Regarding holding data in cache, this would only really be a factor if the RAM available was large enough to store a significant percentage of database in RAM, i.e. huge RAM or very small database. In a normal system where RAM is a very small proportion of database size, the cache is regularly flushed out. However the tempdb – stored on hard-disk – is often large on a Live system which has not been restarted in a while. Tempdb does store data and aid query speed but I would still expect fresh indexes to outway a populated tempdb. Are you using a backup file to restore (which includes indexes) or are you using another method e.g. data transfer wizard etc (which will not copy indexes). Also are both servers of similar standard – eg RAM, Processor, Hard-drive space etc.