Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
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.
This is most likely a ridiculous question, but I’m intrigued by the thought so I’ll ask anyway. Is there any performance or benefit (outside of disaster recovery handling) of having a database on multiple filegroups stored on the same physical drive?
More specifically, if I create a secondary filegroup ONLY for full-text indexes on the same physical drive, is it beneficial? Could it be a bottleneck?
Log files in my situation are stored on a separate physical drive from data files.
It shouldn’t provide any additional benefit, except that with separate file groups you could, potentially, split out your backups. As far as the I/O on the same drive, you won’t gain much if anything by doing this, so if you’re considering it strictly for an I/O performance reason, I would suggest holding off until you can budget separate spindles.