Re: Performance advice

Andy Kent wrote: > > You've lost me. What do you mean by "a decent mix of types"? Well, some logged temp spaces, and some unlogged temp spaces. Some activity uses unlogged temp tables (eg the secret temp tables used by the engine during query plans, or explicitly unlogged temps) and some activity uses logged temp tables - ie explicit code. Both types of temp activity require assistance. > And how is > 1 tempdbs useful when most people are on RAID these days? > (If it's JABOD, or > 1 RAID array, I can understand) I think that's a bit of a leap; I expect that most people are on commodity machines with SCSI controllers and disks, perhaps with O/S or simple hardware RAID of the 0, 1, 01, or 10 kind. I wouldn't expect that a large part of the userbase is using systems with massively cached disk systems (NVRAM etc) So, if the site is using the typical disk hardware, they can see a lot of benefit from laying out the chunks thoughtfully. Anything that keeps more disks busy to just the right capacity will do wonders for performance. Anyway, enough to and fro. sumGirl has replied and needs followup.

Andrew Hamm wrote: > Anyway, enough to and fro. sumGirl has replied and needs followup. No, that was someone else on another thread. C'mon SG we're waiting :-)