http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers Tue, 21 May 2013 00:35:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/partitioning-in-sql-server-20052008/ http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/partitioning-in-sql-server-20052008/#comments Tue, 27 Apr 2010 17:19:19 +0000 Inquisito We have partitioned 5 large tables across 10 partitions (with 10 filegroups) and with a set of 5 – 6 users the performance was adequate, with minimal conflicts (like deadlocks etc), but we want to implement this scheme that can scale to say 300 users. With regard to this I have the following questions:

 - What is the maximum number of partitions that works optimally? In other words, even though SQL Server allows 1000 partitions per table, it would become an administrative nightmare were we to deploy such a scheme.  - **Degradation Concerns**: What would be the maximum (but practical) number of partitions that one can deploy before one has to worry about degradation in performance and concurrency?  - If the number of users access the same partition, what would be the negative impact on the overall scheme (in terms, again of performance)?  - Does a multi-CPU environment enhance the overall performace? Of course, we can suggest to the client to use RAID based storage with data striped across multiple drives?  - Any other aspects related to partitioning that can help me for implementation?

Please come back with your suggestions or questions and I shall try to provide more information if needed. While I can find several articles of partitioning (even from Microsoft MVPs), I would like answers in particular, to address my concerns expressed above. Thanks in advance…

]]> http://itknowledgeexchange.techtarget.com/itanswers/partitioning-in-sql-server-20052008/feed/ 2