Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 570345
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 13, 20262026-05-13T13:23:29+00:00 2026-05-13T13:23:29+00:00

The current DB or our project has crossed over 40 GB this month and

  • 0

The current DB or our project has crossed over 40 GB this month and on an average it is growing monthly by around 3 GB. Now all the tables are best normalized and proper indexing has been used. But still as the size is growing it is taking more time to fire even basic queries like ‘select count(1) from table’. So can u share some more points that will help in this front. Database is Sql Server 2005. Further if we implement Partitioning wouldn’t it create a overhead ?

Thanks in advance.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-13T13:23:29+00:00Added an answer on May 13, 2026 at 1:23 pm
    1. make sure you have suitable/appropriate indexes
    2. make sure you have a good index maintenance strategy (e.g. rebuild/defrag/keep statistics up to date to ensure indexes stay performing well)
    3. identify poorly performing queries and optimise them (may have been written/tested against small data volumes when performance issues would not have shown up)
    4. consider partitioning your data (e.g. SQL 2005 and onwards has built in support for partitioning if you have Enterprise Edition). Edit: to elaborate on SQL Server partitioning, I full recommend a read through this MSDN article on the whys and the hows. On a general note, there was also a good talk at QCon 2008 by Randy Shoup (eBay architect) on scalability, of which one of the key points on scaling a system in general is to partition. It’s summarised here.
    5. is your db server hardware sufficient? could it benefit from more memory?
      Edit: looking at your comment with your hardware info, I think you could do with (at least) throwing more RAM in it
    6. you may benefit from some denormalisation. Difficult to be specific without knowing exact db structure, but denormalising may improve certain queries at the expense of data duplication/disk space
    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

Our current project has ran into a circular dependency issue. Our business logic assembly
Several times throughout the course of our current project, the visual studio designer has
My current team has standardized on NetBeans for all of our Java development, and
Our webapp project has been around for a while (or actually I should say
In my current project we have directory with all of our third party (jQuery,
in our current project we are using ADO.NET Entity Framework as data layer for
In our current project we are interfacing with a third party data provider. They
So while we're using foreign keys in our current project, I've heard the argument
Our current MVC project is set up to have ViewModels that encapsulate the data
For our current J2EE project based on JBoss, we need to interface with a

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.