http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/backing-up-and-restoring-a-live-database-in-sql-server-2000/ Thu, 20 Jun 2013 11:12:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/backing-up-and-restoring-a-live-database-in-sql-server-2000/#comment-54396 ritchie1 Fri, 04 Jul 2008 08:30:50 +0000 #comment-54396 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.

]]> http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/backing-up-and-restoring-a-live-database-in-sql-server-2000/#comment-54351 mrdenny Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:22:36 +0000 #comment-54351 Check out my SQL Server blog “SQL Server with Mr Denny” for more SQL Server information.

]]>