CODEWITHSUNDEEP
sql-serverdatabasesql-server-2005database-design
lancscoder
lancscoder

Reputation: 8768

SQL Server Performance with a large table

I'm looking for some advice for a table structure in sql.

Basically I will have a table with about 30 columns of strings, ints and decimals. A service will be writing to this table about 500 times a day. Each record in the table can either be 'inactive' or 'active'. This table will constantly grow and at any one time there will be about 100 'active' records that need to be returned.

While the table is small the performance to return the 'active' records is responsive. My concern comes 12-18 months down the line when the table is much larger or even later when there will be millions of records in the table.

Is it better to maintain two tables one for 'active' records and one for 'inactive' records from a performance view or will creating a index on the active column solve any potential performance issues?

Upvotes: 1

Views: 2320

Answers (3)

Jon Hanna
Jon Hanna

Reputation: 113262

It certainly will be more performant to have a small "active" table. The most obvious cost is that maintaining the records correctly is more troublesome than with one table. I would probably not do so immediately, but bear it in mind as a potential optimisation.

An index on the active column is going to massively improve matters. Even more so, would multi-column index (or indices) appropriate for the query (or queries) most often used. For example, if you would often ask for active rows created after a certain date, then an index on both date and active could be used to have a single index for retrieval. Likewise, if you wanted all active rows ordered by id, then one on both id and active could be used.

Testing with Database Engine Tuning Advisor can be very informative here, though not as good at predicting what the best approach for data you expect to change in months to come - as you do here.

An indexed view may well be your best approach, as that way you can create the closest thing to a partial index that is available in SQLServer 2005 (which your tags suggest you are using). See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc917715.aspx#XSLTsection124121120120 This will create an index based on your general search/join/order criteria, but only on the relevant rows (ignoring the others entirely).

Better still, if you can use SQLServer 2008, then use a filtered index (what Microsoft have decided to call partial indices). See http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280372.aspx for more on them.

If you'd tagged with 2008 rather than 2005 I'd definitely be suggesting filtered indices, as is I'd probably go for the indexed view, but might just go for the multi-column index.

Upvotes: 5

Jonas Elfström
Jonas Elfström

Reputation: 31428

Index the active field and rebuild the index each weekend and you will be good for ages if it's really only 500 records a day.

365 days times 500 is 182500 and you wrote

millions of records in the table

but with only 500 a day that would take eleven years.

Upvotes: 4

Alexis
Alexis

Reputation: 406

Index is probably the way to go for performance on a table like that. You can consider using another table by putting data you are sure you won't use unless on certain specific report.

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions