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 |
|
AskSQLTeam
Ask SQLTeam Question
0 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-02-24 : 07:36:38
|
| Theo Jacobs writes "Hi SQL Team,I liked SQLGuru's pro and con arguments in the post Partitioning Databases in an Application Service Provider Model sqlguru on 9/21/2000 in Database DesignThe argument seems to hold well for a couple of hundred customers. But I have found astonishingly little information in newsgroups and with colleagues on the trade-offs involved when you would try to get maybe 20.000 users in a SQL Server ASP environment, and thus have 20.000 smaller application databases to manage.I understand that the performance issues on data and procedure caching, which probably rely on effective usage of common tables, depend mainly on the data model and application.I also understand that the number of active databases and the performance involved depends on the hardware environment.I just would like to know: do you guys know or think that some DBA's out there are really using thousands of little individual client databases (maybe even 32K) for ASP applications rather than a big database. What would the performance issues involved be, apart from the pure SQL performance, I try to get a feel for the overhead for using all these small databases.Any info on this subject very welcome, believe me, Google doesn't get one very far, even after a couple of hours." |
|
|
|
|
|
number of smaller application databases: practical versus theoretical limits