Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Cstolworthy
Starting Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 2009-01-28 : 12:54:10
|
| I am not sure if this is the right forum, but here goes. I was wondering if anyone has an idea of the number of rows you can have in a table before SQL will start hitting performance bottlenecks. My company is taking on a project that will end up generating a large number of rows. The rows have only a few columns and the data in each column is small( an int,a datetime, a datetime, a decimal).This project has the potential to generate hundreds of millions of rows, and we were wondering at what point we should start using multiple tables. Any input is appreciated! |
|
|
visakh16
Very Important crosS Applying yaK Herder
52326 Posts |
Posted - 2009-01-28 : 13:01:11
|
| millions of rows are not a big deal nowadays. If at any point, you feel some performance bottleneck, one solution is to partition the table based on partition function. this will improve performance and you can even add indexes to any of partitions to speed up queries further. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Number of rows SQL can handle gracefully