Re: SE and big databases or RAID

Miguel A. Caldera (mac@antares-dev.com) wrote: : I know this is will generate remarks like "Use Online, stupid!", but... : I have a customer running SE for the obvious cost savings over Online. : We are projecting a database size in the 2 to 4 million rows size for : one of the big tables. The records are not large, 15 rows for a total of : 126 bytes. The database will probably take over a year to get : there, but it is expected to get that big. Has anybody ever run SE that : large? I expect to see some performance degradation, but the customer : is prepared to throw more money at the hardware before he will hire : someone to maintain Online. The customer already has 250,000 records : and is very pleased with current performance. Before there was Online I ran into a simular situation. The deal never happened but we did come up with one possible solution. We were dealing with medical patients , so our patient file would potentialy grow very large. We decided to split the table up by last name. We would have four tables patienta2f, patientg2l,... or some such. It would cause some extra coding but nothing unbearable. We also designed in four cross reference tables to for the SSN. But weren't sure if we needed it. For queries other than last name we would query each table till we found one. HTH -- John Regep, || _______ || ZenaComp, Incorporated Information Consultant || -----/ / || 17187 N.Laurel Park Dr. #351 jregep@zenacomp.com || / /______ || Livonia, Michigan 48152 1-(313)-464-3700 || -------- || FAX (313)-464-3730