"Large" Table

What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
"consider this" sort of thing...
Thanks,
Frank V.
well . table with >100.000 rows is considered a pretty large table
cheers.
|||I would classify any table that is difficult to manage due to its size as
"large". I would draw the line at 10's of millions of rows but that's
purely subjective. Much depends on the hardware.
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Frank V" <jawzx01@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184784737.154468.26810@.z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...
> What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
> database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
> "consider this" sort of thing...
> Thanks,
> Frank V.
>
|||A VERY subjective question. How wide are these rows and what hardware do
they sit on and what is the database and even table physical layout all play
major roles in determining whether a table is "large" or not.
TheSQLGuru
President
Indicium Resources, Inc.
"Frank V" <jawzx01@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184784737.154468.26810@.z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...
> What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
> database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
> "consider this" sort of thing...
> Thanks,
> Frank V.
>
|||> What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
> database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
> "consider this" sort of thing...
The table with the largest number of rows I have has 3 millions rows. It
doesn't make any significant difference in performance with any other table,
except for badly designed queries ending in a sequential scan of a large
number of records. My queries have been carefully designed and the required
indexes have been created. That's why the number of records is not that much
significant.
btw: The database run on a desktop class server.
Francois PIETTE
http://www.overbyte.be
|||On 18 Jul, 19:52, Frank V <jawz...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
> database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
> "consider this" sort of thing...
> Thanks,
> Frank V.
A terabyte is quite large. Less than 1 million rows is not large. 6
feet is small and a mile is too long.
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
|||I also think this is quite subjective. IMO a table is big if it exceeds
the server's RAM. So for a table with 4 GB RAM, I would consider a table
bigger than 4 GB large. Most 100,000 row tables would not qualify as
large using this criterium.
Gert-Jan
Hate_orphaned_users wrote:
> well . table with >100.000 rows is considered a pretty large table
> cheers.
|||On Jul 19, 12:52 am, Frank V <jawz...@.gmail.com> wrote:
> What would most people consider to be a "large" table for a SQL server
> database? I'm not asking for any specific purpose, most just a
> "consider this" sort of thing...
> Thanks,
> Frank V.
Any table with ~5 mil rows is fairly large in my opinion. HTH.