I've been assigned to do performance tuning on an SQL2000 database
(around 10GB in size, several instances).
So far, I see a single RAID5 array, 4CPU (xeon 700MHZ), 4GB RAM.
I see the raid5 as a bottleneck. I'd setup a raid 10 and seperate the
logs, database and OS(win2k).
The one thing that was a bit odd to me was that I was told this place
doesn't use indexes. The company is a house builder. They are pretty
large.
The IT manager isn't a programmer so she couldn't explain to me why no
indexes are used. She told me the programmers just don't use indexes.
Before I start investing more time on this, I'd really like to learn
about why you wouldn't want to use indexes - especially on such a large
database!
Thanks,
OskarI can think of no good reason to NOT use indexes; that should be a
basic ingedient to any performance improvement attempt. It should also
be transparent to any development staff they have (in other words,
programmers should suggest what indexes they think would be
appropriate, but in most cases they shouldn't worry about developing
them on an as-needed basis).
If you are going to add indexes, you may also want to place your
clustered indexes on your data drive, and your other indexes on the log
drive; this may help improve speed as well. I typically try to have a
third drive available for indexes, but sometimes that's not an option.
Just my .02.
Stu
No comments:
Post a Comment