What is the best way to partition large tables in SQL Server?

RyanFetz picture RyanFetz · Oct 3, 2008 · Viewed 14.5k times · Source

In a recent project the "lead" developer designed a database schema where "larger" tables would be split across two separate databases with a view on the main database which would union the two separate database-tables together. The main database is what the application was driven off of so these tables looked and felt like ordinary tables (except some quirky things around updating). This seemed like a HUGE performance problem. We do see problems with performance around these tables but nothing to make him change his mind about his design. Just wondering what is the best way to do this, or if it is even worth doing?

Answer

Bill picture Bill · Oct 3, 2008

I don't think that you are really going to gain anything by partitioning the table across multiple databases in a single server. All you have essentially done there is increased the overhead in working with the "table" in the first place by having several instances (i.e. open in two different DBs) of it under a single SQL Server instance.

How large of a dataset do you have? I have a client with a 6 million row table in SQL Server that contains 2 years worth of sales data. They use it transactionally and for reporting without any noticiable speed problems.

Tuning the indexes and choosing the correct clustered index is crucial to performance of course.

If your dataset is really large and you are looking to partition, you will get more bang for your buck partitioning the table across physical servers.