SQL Server the maximum number of rows in table

Question

I develop software that stores a lot of data in one of its database tables  SQL Server version 8  9 or 10   Let s say  about 100 000 records are inserted into that table per day  This is about 36 million records per year  For fear that I would lose on performance  I decided to create a new table everyday  a table with current date in its name  to lower the number of records per table   Could you please tell me  whether it was a good idea  Is there a record limit for SQL server tables  Or do you know how many records  more or less  can be stored in a table before performance is lowered significantly

User · Answer

You can populate the table until you have enough disk space. For better performance you can try migration to SQL Server 2005 and then partition the table and put parts on different disks(if you have RAID configuration that could really help you). Partitioning is possible only in enterprise version of SQL Server 2005. You can look partitioning example at this link: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162478.aspx

Also you can try to create views for most used data portion, that is also one of the solutions.

Hope this helped...

User · Answer

I do not know of a row limit  but I know tables with more than 170 million rows  You may speed it up using partitioned tables  2005   or views that connect multiple tables

User · Answer

These are some of the Maximum Capacity Specifications for SQL Server 2008 R2    Database size  524 272 terabytes Databases per instance of SQL Server  32 767 Filegroups per database   32 767 Files per database  32 767 File size  data   16 terabytes File size  log   2 terabytes Rows per table  Limited by available storage Tables per database  Limited by number of objects in a database

User · Answer

SELECT Top 1 sysobjects  name   max sysindexes  rows   AS TableRows     CAST       CASE max sysindexes  rows          WHEN 0 THEN -0        ELSE LOG10 max sysindexes  rows         END      AS NUMERIC 5 2      AS L10 TableRows  FROM sysindexes INNER JOIN sysobjects ON sysindexes  id    sysobjects  id   WHERE sysobjects xtype    U   GROUP BY sysobjects  name   ORDER BY max rows  DESC

User · Answer

Partition the table monthly That is the best way to handle tables with large daily influx  be it oracle or MSSQL

User · Answer

We have tables in SQL Server 2005 and 2008 with over 1 Billion rows in it  30 million added daily    I can t imagine going down the rats nest of splitting that out into a new table each day   Much cheaper to add the appropriate disk space  which you need anyway  and RAM

User · Answer

Largest table I ve encountered on SQL Server 8 on Windows2003 was 799 million with 5 columns  But whether or not it s good will is to be measured against the SLA and usage case - e g  load 50-100 000 000 records and see if it still works

User · Answer

It depends  but I would say it is better to keep everything in one table for that sake of simplicity   100 000 rows a day is not really that much of an enormous amount   Depending on your server hardware   I have personally seen MSSQL handle up to 100M rows in a single table without any problems  As long as your keep your indexes in order it should be all good  The key is to have heaps of memory so that indexes don t have to be swapped out to disk   On the other hand  it depends on how you are using the data  if you need to make lots of query s  and its unlikely data will be needed that spans multiple days  so you won t need to join the tables  it will be faster to separate out it out into multiple tables  This is  often used in applications such as industrial process control where you might be reading the value on say 50 000 instruments every 10 seconds  In this case speed is extremely important  but simplicity is not

User · Answer

I don t know MSSQL specifically  but 36 million rows is not large to an enterprise database - working with mainframe databases  100 000 rows sounds like a configuration table to me  -    While I m not a big fan of some of Microsoft s software  this isn t Access we re talking about here  I assume they can handle pretty substantial database sizes with their enterprise DBMS   I suspect days may have been too fine a resolution to divide it up  if indeed it needs dividing at all

User · Answer

I have a three column table with just over 6 Billion rows in SQL Server 2008 R2   We query it every day to create minute-by-minute system analysis charts for our customers  I have not noticed any database performance hits  though the fact that it grows  1 GB every day does make managing backups a bit more involved than I would like    Update July 2016    We made it to  24 5 billion rows before backups became large enough for us to decide to truncate records older than two years   700 GB stored in multiple backups  including on expensive tapes   It s worth noting that performance was not a significant motivator in this decision  i e   it was still working great    For anyone who finds themselves trying to delete 20 billion rows from SQL Server  I highly recommend this article  Relevant code in case the link dies  read the article for a full explanation    ALTER DATABASE DeleteRecord SET RECOVERY SIMPLE  GO  BEGIN TRY     BEGIN TRANSACTION         -- Bulk logged          SELECT            INTO    dbo bigtable intermediate         FROM    dbo bigtable         WHERE   Id   2   0           -- minimal logged because DDL-Operation          TRUNCATE TABLE dbo bigtable             -- Bulk logged because target table is exclusivly locked           SET IDENTITY INSERT dbo bigTable ON          INSERT INTO dbo bigtable WITH  TABLOCK   Id  c1  c2  c3          SELECT Id  c1  c2  c3 FROM dbo bigtable intermediate ORDER BY Id          SET IDENTITY INSERT dbo bigtable OFF      COMMIT END TRY BEGIN CATCH     IF   TRANCOUNT  gt  0         ROLLBACK END CATCH  ALTER DATABASE DeleteRecord SET RECOVERY FULL  GO   Update November 2016  If you plan on storing this much data in a single table  don t  I highly recommend you consider table partitioning  either manually or with the built-in features if you re running Enterprise edition   This makes dropping old data as easy as truncating a table once a  week month etc    If you don t have Enterprise  which we don t   you can simply write a script which runs once a month  drops tables older than 2 years  creates next month s table  and regenerates a dynamic view that joins all of the partition tables together for easy querying  Obviously  once a month  and  older than 2 years  should be defined by you based on what makes sense for your use-case  Deleting directly from a table with tens of billions of rows of data will a  take a HUGE amount of time and b  fill up the transaction log hundreds or thousands of times over

User · Answer

We overflowed an integer primary key once  which is  2 4 billion rows  on a table  If there s a row limit  you re not likely to ever hit it at a mere 36 million rows per year

User · Answer

It s hard to give a generic answer to this  It really depends on number of factors    what size your row is  what kind of data you store  strings  blobs  numbers  what do you do with your data  just keep it as archive  query it regularly  do you have indexes on your table - how many what s your server specs   etc   As answered elsewhere here  100 000 a day and thus per table is overkill - I d suggest monthly or weekly perhaps even quarterly  The more tables you have the bigger maintenance query nightmare it will become

[sql-server] SQL Server: the maximum number of rows in table

Examples related to sql-server

Examples related to database-design