|
Home > Archive > microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcsd > May 2004 > SQL question
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Session 2004-05-03, 3:26 pm |
| I got a question on the exam about what the best way to
create a database would be. The two answers I hesitated
on were:
1- set the filegrowth to a static value, such as 5mb
2- set teh filegrowth to a percentage.
Can someone enlighten me on the efficiency aspect of any
of these. Thanks
Session
| |
| Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\) 2004-05-03, 4:28 pm |
| Without knowing the specifics, here is the why
Setting a static value works best when you know certain activities are going
to take place that consume a specific amount of space. It is also good when
you want a predictable growth pattern X MB versus a sliding scale
(percentage), which is good for getting an alert before a drive is full, for
example. It is more process driven (nightly import) than user base driven.
Percentage is opposite and great, for example, when a user base keeps
growing. It is overkill, over time, when you are driving growth for a
particular process.
This is oversimplified, but it works.
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
******************************
******************************
**********
Think Outside the Box!
******************************
******************************
**********
"Session" <semwamufiya@alum.vassar.edu> wrote in message
news:79cd01c4313a$90827730$a50
1280a@phx.gbl...
> I got a question on the exam about what the best way to
> create a database would be. The two answers I hesitated
> on were:
>
> 1- set the filegrowth to a static value, such as 5mb
> 2- set teh filegrowth to a percentage.
>
> Can someone enlighten me on the efficiency aspect of any
> of these. Thanks
>
> Session
>
>
| |
| Imayavaramban R 2004-05-03, 4:28 pm |
| Hi,
The answer to your query would actually depend on the size of the database
and the pace with which it would grow.
If the database is growing automatically often (daily or multiple times a
week), it is better that we change the growth percentage to a larger
number, such as 25% or 30%. Each time the database has to be increased, SQL
Server will suffer a small performance hit. By increasing the amount the
database grows each time, the less often it will have to grow.
But if the database is very large, 10GB or larger, it is better to use a
fixed growth amount (static) instead of a percentage growth amount. This
is because a percentage growth amount can be large on a large database. For
example, a 10% growth rate on a 10GB database means that when the database
grows, it will increase by 1GB. This may or may not be what you want. For
example, a fixed growth rate, such as 100MB at a time, might be more
appropriate.
Please check under 'Best Practices' in the following page :
http://support.microsoft.com/defaul...2&Product=sql2k
Thanks and Regards,
(Imay) Imayavaramban R
This posting is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no rights.
| |
| saurabhdotnet 2004-05-03, 5:26 pm |
| Hi ! Dear,
If you have a database, in which you editing/adding of records is frequent. Use Static Growth.
But if you feel, you will be adding/editing more frequently. Just set the file growth to Percentage.
"Session" wrote:
> I got a question on the exam about what the best way to
> create a database would be. The two answers I hesitated
> on were:
>
> 1- set the filegrowth to a static value, such as 5mb
> 2- set teh filegrowth to a percentage.
>
> Can someone enlighten me on the efficiency aspect of any
> of these. Thanks
>
> Session
>
>
>
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-05-04, 3:25 pm |
| Again NDA comes to mind.
On Mon, 3 May 2004 11:15:07 -0700, "Session"
<semwamufiya@alum.vassar.edu> wrote:
>I got a question on the exam about what the best way to
>create a database would be. The two answers I hesitated
>on were:
>
>1- set the filegrowth to a static value, such as 5mb
>2- set teh filegrowth to a percentage.
>
>Can someone enlighten me on the efficiency aspect of any
>of these. Thanks
>
>Session
>
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-05-04, 3:25 pm |
| >But if the database is very large, 10GB or larger, it is better to use a
>fixed growth amount (static) instead of a percentage growth amount. This
>is because a percentage growth amount can be large on a large database. For
>example, a 10% growth rate on a 10GB database means that when the database
>grows, it will increase by 1GB. This may or may not be what you want. For
>example, a fixed growth rate, such as 100MB at a time, might be more
>appropriate.
Even for small databases you should set the file size(s) to reflect
what you feel will be the maximum size of your database. If nothing
else, this shows that you have performed, as part of some analysis
task, a sizing exercise to determine how much data is expected to be
captured over the system's life time. Alerts should be triggered when
the file size(s) cause a file to grow over the max size, so that the
nature of the data can be re-accessed.
In any case, file(s) which are set at very small sizes will grow
rapidly, which may well lead to external fragmentation and result in
some kind of performance lose.
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
| |
| The Poster Formerly Known as Kline Sphere 2004-05-04, 3:25 pm |
| >But if you feel, you will be adding/editing more frequently. Just set the file growth to Percentage.
For toy databases yes, because no one tends to give a damn.
Kline Sphere (Chalk) MCNGP #3
|
|
|
|
|