good online resources for teaching SQL for SQL server 2000

my freind asked me to look for him for online book or something very good that teach SQL for SQL server 2000 ... what i need is something like hands on examples that will take user from level 1 to level * ... i have seen alot of stuff in google but i think some of you might know what i need and can direct me to better resources as i could not find someting specail !!!Try this link and check the side bar but the best remains download the eval version and use the BOL (books online). Hope this helps.
http://www.mssqlserver.com/tsql/|||thanks Caddre!!
when i see you reply ... i got a feeling that you will meet the expectation ... the link is really great !!
thanks again!

Good online resources

Hi,
I am a newbie in the world of the SQL server . However I have a
reasonable idea of SQL and a little bit of Oracle. Could you please suggest
some good online resources for me preferable starting from scratch... but
leading in real deep.
Anupam
--
We all want to destroy evil. But the line dividing evil and good is
insidiously hidden in each of our hearts and who wants to destroy a piece of
his own heartThere are lots of resources out there with a mixture of content difficulty
and area of specialisation
here is a good starter index for you
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/community/relcommunities.asp
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Anupam" <anupam_mukherjee@.persistent.co.in> wrote in message
news:uPh0E2vkDHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am a newbie in the world of the SQL server . However I have a
> reasonable idea of SQL and a little bit of Oracle. Could you please
suggest
> some good online resources for me preferable starting from scratch... but
> leading in real deep.
> Anupam
> --
> We all want to destroy evil. But the line dividing evil and good is
> insidiously hidden in each of our hearts and who wants to destroy a piece
of
> his own heart
>|||See here for some links:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/community/relcommunities.asp
Also, don't forget SQL's own essential help file, Books Online.
--
David Portas
--
Please reply only to the newsgroup
--
"Anupam" <anupam_mukherjee@.persistent.co.in> wrote in message
news:uPh0E2vkDHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am a newbie in the world of the SQL server . However I have a
> reasonable idea of SQL and a little bit of Oracle. Could you please
suggest
> some good online resources for me preferable starting from scratch... but
> leading in real deep.
> Anupam
> --
> We all want to destroy evil. But the line dividing evil and good is
> insidiously hidden in each of our hearts and who wants to destroy a piece
of
> his own heart
>|||Hi,
Thanx guys for the info. Its highly appreciated.
Regards,
Anupam
--
We all want to destroy evil. But the line dividing evil and good is
insidiously hidden in each of our hearts and who wants to destroy a piece of
his own heart

good integration services book

ive been learning through books online, but i just find learning from a book is better for me. have any of you bought books on integration services and if so , would you recommend them?

I have "Professional SQL Server 2005 Integration Services". I have not used the book extensively as I am currently extracting from an Oracle source into SQL 2005 and then using stored procs to carry out the ETL.

Most of my advanced work is in SSAS and I would recommend "Applied Microsoft Analysis Services 2005" by Teo Lachev.

|||

I agree both books listed previously are excellent. You should also look at "The Microsoft Data Warehouse Toolkit" from Wiley. Much of the book is devoted to SSIS.

Frank

|||

I agree that all three books are must haves.

The MS Data Warehouse toolkit is particularly good if you haven't built a warehouse before, because it concentrates much more on the WHATS rather than the HOWS.

You may also want to consider "The Rational Guide to Scripting SQL Server 2005 Integration Services'.

Its not a must have, but can come in handy and is a quick read.

|||

The book is great and just attended the class taught by the authors of the MS Datawarehous Toolkit.

Highly recommended.

Mark

spaces.msn.com/mgarnerbi

|||Well you can try my book. It's really for the beginners. If you are an advanced user or trying to do some serious stuff this is not for you. However, you may still find some parts usufl. What else I can say I am the author and I have the most sanguine expectations that it is a helpful book. If you liked it send an email: jkrishnaswamy@.comcast.net.
Well, if you did not like it also send me an email.

http://www.packtpub.com/sql-server-integration-services-visual-studio-2005/book

Going from 5M to 450M transactions a month

Hi,
We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of workload?
Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware strategy
would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
terabytes of RAM?
I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to set
up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
Any idea?
Thanks
Stephane
1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org and
their tpc-c benchmark.
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=107031201, for
$63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
opposite.
3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, install,
configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get data
from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane
|||Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
DPV's.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane
|||DPV's?
"Jay" wrote:

> Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
> DPV's.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi,
Your answer is really helpful. Thanks a lot.
As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
that kind of workload.
What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for less
than 10K$?
Thanks
Stephane
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org and
> their tpc-c benchmark.
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
> server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
> MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
> 10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=107031201, for
> $63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
> state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
> 2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
> opposite.
> 3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, install,
> configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
> experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
> and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
> 4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
> is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get data
> from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
> quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
> mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
>
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:08:01 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
>that kind of workload.
>What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for less
>than 10K$?
Only you have the most important source of information for those sorts
of question, the existing server. Analyze the load that 5M
transactions is placing on the server and how well it is dealing with
it. That should include analysis of peak load, not average over a
month. It should include analysis of CPU, memory and disk usage. Try
to identify the bottlenecks and estimate the headroom. Much of this
can be learned by using Performance Monitor. With that information
you can better know where to put your money - CPU or disk are the
obvious choices after loading up with memory.
You may also find that the application and database design need
tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
|||Distributed Partitioned Views.
You put part of a table on one server and another part on a different
server.
It's what you do to get a fully load balanced, fault tolerant (lost a
server) system.
One warning, it relies heavily on the DDL and is complicated to setup, but
with enough nodes, could support Google type traffic.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0CC6354-66FB-4306-83B6-2B163F766CB5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> DPV's?
> "Jay" wrote:
|||> You may also find that the application and database design need
> tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
> ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Truer words are seldom spoken!
|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:34:04 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
>millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
>much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Waitaminute, what do you mean by "stats system"? Does your server
*do* 5m trx/month, or does your server *analyze* the records of 5m
trx/month? If the later, that's a very different thing!
J.

Going from 5M to 450M transactions a month

Hi,
We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of workload
?
Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware strategy
would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
terabytes of RAM?
I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to set
up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
Any idea?
Thanks
Stephane1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org and
their tpc-c benchmark.
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...p?id=107031201, for
$63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
opposite.
3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, install,
configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get data
from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane|||Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
DPV's.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane|||DPV's?
"Jay" wrote:

> Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
> DPV's.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi,
Your answer is really helpful. Thanks a lot.
As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
that kind of workload.
What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for less
than 10K$?
Thanks
Stephane
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:

> 1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org a
nd
> their tpc-c benchmark.
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
> server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
> MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
> 10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...p?id=107031201, for
> $63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
> state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
> 2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
> opposite.
> 3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, instal
l,
> configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
> experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
> and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
> 4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
> is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get da
ta
> from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
> quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
> mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
>
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:08:01 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
>that kind of workload.
>What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for les
s
>than 10K$?
Only you have the most important source of information for those sorts
of question, the existing server. Analyze the load that 5M
transactions is placing on the server and how well it is dealing with
it. That should include analysis of peak load, not average over a
month. It should include analysis of CPU, memory and disk usage. Try
to identify the bottlenecks and estimate the headroom. Much of this
can be learned by using Performance Monitor. With that information
you can better know where to put your money - CPU or disk are the
obvious choices after loading up with memory.
You may also find that the application and database design need
tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||Distributed Partitioned Views.
You put part of a table on one server and another part on a different
server.
It's what you do to get a fully load balanced, fault tolerant (lost a
server) system.
One warning, it relies heavily on the DDL and is complicated to setup, but
with enough nodes, could support Google type traffic.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0CC6354-66FB-4306-83B6-2B163F766CB5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> DPV's?
> "Jay" wrote:
>|||> You may also find that the application and database design need
> tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
> ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Truer words are seldom spoken!|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:34:04 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
>millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
>much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Waitaminute, what do you mean by "stats system"? Does your server
*do* 5m trx/month, or does your server *analyze* the records of 5m
trx/month? If the later, that's a very different thing!
J.

Going from 5M to 450M transactions a month

Hi,
We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of workload?
Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware strategy
would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
terabytes of RAM?
I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to set
up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
Any idea?
Thanks
Stephane1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org and
their tpc-c benchmark.
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=107031201, for
$63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
opposite.
3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, install,
configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get data
from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane|||Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
DPV's.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> as
> much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> workload?
> Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> strategy
> would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> terabytes of RAM?
> I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> set
> up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> Any idea?
> Thanks
> Stephane|||DPV's?
"Jay" wrote:
> Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
> DPV's.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> > millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> > as
> > much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> >
> > Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> > will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> > workload?
> > Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> > strategy
> > would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> > terabytes of RAM?
> >
> > I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> > set
> > up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Stephane
>
>|||Hi,
Your answer is really helpful. Thanks a lot.
As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
that kind of workload.
What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for less
than 10K$?
Thanks
Stephane
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> 1) Yes, SQL Server can support 450M xactions per month. See www.tpc.org and
> their tpc-c benchmark.
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp will show that sql
> server (number 7 on the list) was able to scale to 1.2M transactions PER
> MINUTE. Note that this was a $6M setup. However, 450M per month is about
> 10500 xactions/min running 24/7. Per this link -
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_result_detail.asp?id=107031201, for
> $63000 you can build a system that will process 70K xactions/min steady
> state. The tpc-c transaction definition is fairly complex too.
> 2) Replication is usually not associated with performance. Just the
> opposite.
> 3) You should hire an experienced person or company to spec, setup, install,
> configure a mongo server for you. Make sure it is an entity that has
> experience with very large systems. To do less will be wasting both time
> and money and you will most likely still not get a performanct system.
> 4) Terabytes of RAM aren't achievable on sql server just yet. Tens+ of GB
> is pretty much it AFAIK. What will really matter is the ability to get data
> from disk (or the network for a web/streaming app) and into the CPUs VERY
> quickly. You will also need a very optimized data structure, data access
> mechanisms, index strategy and routine maintenance.
>
> --
> TheSQLGuru
> President
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi,
> >
> > We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
> > millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support
> > as
> > much as 450 millions transactions a month.
> >
> > Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go RAM
> > will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
> > workload?
> > Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
> > strategy
> > would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
> > terabytes of RAM?
> >
> > I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
> > set
> > up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
> >
> > Any idea?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Stephane
>
>|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:08:01 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>As I can understand, for less than 50K$, it's not really possible to manage
>that kind of workload.
>What could be the maximum worload for a scale up server? Let's say, for less
>than 10K$?
Only you have the most important source of information for those sorts
of question, the existing server. Analyze the load that 5M
transactions is placing on the server and how well it is dealing with
it. That should include analysis of peak load, not average over a
month. It should include analysis of CPU, memory and disk usage. Try
to identify the bottlenecks and estimate the headroom. Much of this
can be learned by using Performance Monitor. With that information
you can better know where to put your money - CPU or disk are the
obvious choices after loading up with memory.
You may also find that the application and database design need
tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT|||Distributed Partitioned Views.
You put part of a table on one server and another part on a different
server.
It's what you do to get a fully load balanced, fault tolerant (lost a
server) system.
One warning, it relies heavily on the DDL and is complicated to setup, but
with enough nodes, could support Google type traffic.
"Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B0CC6354-66FB-4306-83B6-2B163F766CB5@.microsoft.com...
> DPV's?
> "Jay" wrote:
>> Or, you can setup an active/active cluster and layout the tables using
>> DPV's.
>> "Stephane" <Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:3712B71E-0A3A-40FA-929D-8C6074720204@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
>> > millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could
>> > support
>> > as
>> > much as 450 millions transactions a month.
>> >
>> > Obviously, a single server with a 1.5 Ghz dual-core processor and 2 Go
>> > RAM
>> > will crash under this workload. But what could support that kind of
>> > workload?
>> > Can SQL server basically support that? If so, what kind of hardware
>> > strategy
>> > would be the best? Replication? One big fat server with 16 CPU and some
>> > terabytes of RAM?
>> >
>> > I'm looking for infos, thoughts, hints or articles to read about how to
>> > set
>> > up a SQL server to support a huge workload.
>> >
>> > Any idea?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> > Stephane
>>|||> You may also find that the application and database design need
> tweaking. At higher transaction volumes minor issues can become major
> ones, and a minor optimization can have a significant payback.
Truer words are seldom spoken!|||On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 10:34:04 -0700, Stephane
<Stephane@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>We have developped a online web stats system. It currently has about 5
>millions transactions per month. A customer wondered if we could support as
>much as 450 millions transactions a month.
Waitaminute, what do you mean by "stats system"? Does your server
*do* 5m trx/month, or does your server *analyze* the records of 5m
trx/month? If the later, that's a very different thing!
J.

GO Statement

Hi,
I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
put GO statement? Why?
Thanks a lot!!
Michael
Michael,
Did you look into BOL before posting the question?
GO (Transact-SQL)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188037.aspx
AMB
"Michael" wrote:

> Hi,
> I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
> GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
> statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
> put GO statement? Why?
> Thanks a lot!!
> Michael
>

GO Statement

Hi,
I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
put GO statement? Why?
Thanks a lot!!
MichaelMichael,
Did you look into BOL before posting the question?
GO (Transact-SQL)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188037.aspx
AMB
"Michael" wrote:

> Hi,
> I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
> GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
> statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
> put GO statement? Why?
> Thanks a lot!!
> Michael
>

GO Statement

Hi,
I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
put GO statement? Why?
Thanks a lot!!
MichaelMichael,
Did you look into BOL before posting the question?
GO (Transact-SQL)
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188037.aspx
AMB
"Michael" wrote:
> Hi,
> I've notied when I execute SQL Transact statements I can do it without
> GO Statement. But when I refer to a lot of online documents, I see GO
> statements. So from the practice/good coding perspective, when shall I
> put GO statement? Why?
> Thanks a lot!!
> Michael
>