Re: MS SQL Serveror ORACLE?

We've got a single table with two nonclustered indecies, 85 million rows and growing (estimated running max is 150 million) that is constantly being inserted into. We also have some very industrial reports which work on that table (and several others, although they're no bigger than 4 or 5 million rows). Performance monitor shows the processor maxed out most of the time. Microsofts reaction to this is that we DBCC to find out whether we have any problems (although this can take days if you check the indexes with it), and to copy the data out row by row into a new database when it fails (praying hard that the corruption hasn't nuked any data). This copy out takes 3 and a half days!

MS have now dumped us entirely, refusing to support the problem because they are unable to fix it, quoting unsupported hardware (specifically, an Adaptec 2940UW!!!!!). They also blamed our SCSI cable. But we do have an Infortrend RAID unit which is not on their compatability list, so they're unfortunately allowed to get away with that statement. They suggest we go and buy a Compaq or HP RAID instead. Presumably they think all companies have $6billion in cash to waste....

I our experience, SQL server is fine (and easy to setup and manage) for small databases with spare CPU, disk, memory resources. Thrash the atabase - and it dies.

John

Neil Pike <100577.553_at_compuserve.com> wrote in message ...
>John,
>
> I have a 100Gb database and don't experience these problems - well
>very rarely anyway (and never since going to 6.5). Obviously your
>particular pattern of updates (lot's of NC indexes?) is exposing a bad
>bug.
>
> Neil Pike MVP/MCSE
> Protech Computing Ltd
>
>
Received on Tue Mar 17 1998 - 00:00:00 CST