[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.sqlserver.programming

Memory usage of sql server

Roy Goldhammer

3/20/2007 3:34:00 PM

Hello there

For my job i need to make reserch about using phsycal memory against
database size.

Does someone have direct documentation about it?


7 Answers

Immy

3/20/2007 4:06:00 PM

0

Roy,

there is no direct correlation between database size and memory.
SQL is a RAM hungry application and you would need to implement some
monitoring in order to research your memory requirements.
You can never have too much RAM for SQL :)

Immy

"Roy Goldhammer" <roy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23D2YvTwaHHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hello there
>
> For my job i need to make reserch about using phsycal memory against
> database size.
>
> Does someone have direct documentation about it?
>


Roy Goldhammer

3/22/2007 2:06:00 PM

0

Whell Immy

This is my major problem:
I'm using sql standard edition.

The current usage of memory is approx 1.72 - 1.76 GB ram. The server has
4GB. so the problem is the using of memory when standard edition is limited
to 2GB.

There are many tables that works two slow because they don't have any
indexes. including primary key or clustered indexes.

I know that i must create indexes for these tables. But, using more indexes
cost more storage which is very limited in my case. and these tables have a
lot of records( they are audit tables that the have appeox 1,000,000 to
7,000,000 records inside it

What i need to know is: does creating new indexes as primary key and
clustered indexes can increase the Ram storage, even when i don't use these
tables all the time?

Also i discovered that the amount of memory that is being used depend on the
application, which is Access on my work. and access holds direct connection
to all the tables relate to sql server. so if i can drop some tables from
access will it will cost less memory?

"Immy" <therealasianbabe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eQWRkmwaHHA.4940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Roy,
>
> there is no direct correlation between database size and memory.
> SQL is a RAM hungry application and you would need to implement some
> monitoring in order to research your memory requirements.
> You can never have too much RAM for SQL :)
>
> Immy
>
> "Roy Goldhammer" <roy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23D2YvTwaHHA.4948@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Hello there
>>
>> For my job i need to make reserch about using phsycal memory against
>> database size.
>>
>> Does someone have direct documentation about it?
>>
>
>


Hugo Kornelis

3/23/2007 11:23:00 PM

0

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 16:05:34 +0200, Roy Goldhammer wrote:

(snip)
>What i need to know is: does creating new indexes as primary key and
>clustered indexes can increase the Ram storage, even when i don't use these
>tables all the time?

Hi Roy,

No.

The way MS SQL Server manages it's memory is as follows:
1. If data has to be read, it is first read into memory (cache) beofre
being used.
2. If the same data has to be read again later, it can be read from
cache without having to hit the disk.
3. Changes to data are also made to cache; writing to disk is done
asynchronously in a background process, but even after writing, the data
is retained in cache.
4. If more data has to be read in cache, SQL Server tries to allocate
more memory. (*)
5. Only if no more memory can be allocated will SQL Server clean out
parts of the cache, starting with pages that have last been touched the
longest ago.
6. SQL Server will only release memory to the OS if other applications
or the OS ask for more memory than is left. If that happens, pages in
cache that have last been touched the longest ago will be released.

(*) By default, SQL Server will allocate all available memory. If you
want to leave room for other applications running on the same server,
you can use the "max server memory" option of sp_configure to set a
maximum.

So if you don't use a table or index, it won't go into cache. If you do
use it, it will go into cache and stay there (usuallly). But if the
index helps having to read less pages in order to find a row, less pages
are read into memory, not more! (But in the end, when all pages from
both table and index have been used, they may take up more memory).

>Also i discovered that the amount of memory that is being used depend on the
>application, which is Access on my work. and access holds direct connection
>to all the tables relate to sql server. so if i can drop some tables from
>access will it will cost less memory?

Do you mean that you have local copies of the SQL Server tables in
Access or that you have connections to the SQL Server tables? In either
case, they MIGHT take memory - but you'll have to ask in an Access group
to make sure.

--
Hugo Kornelis, SQL Server MVP
My SQL Server blog: http://sqlblog.com/blogs/hug...

barb

4/3/2008 3:18:00 PM

0

kennethnoisewater1@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 2, 4:22 pm, Alert <flicking_you...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip Ebay nonsense and other rambling]
>
> My left hand stopped working for six months. I initially thought it
> was a stroke. That was scary. It finally started working again after
> I put a brace on it for a month. A doctor finally found it was due to
> sleeping on it for a long period of time and I had damaged nerves in
> the hand. This is actually common he said. I'm glad I'm all better.
> Thanks for your concern.
>
> As for the Ebay, as I've said before a bunch of times, but I guess you
> haven't gotten it through your thick scull....... I only put the sites
> up to see what they were worth and to draw attention to other would be
> critic site owners. I also wanted to put an end to my Durks
> character. There's no way I would ever sell my critic sites. It
> provides me with too many lulz while providing a great service to the
> community.
>
> You are such an asshole Alert. Seriously, piss off already.
>

Oh, quit dorking up the NG, ya asshat. We've heard all your excuses.
Lame.

--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!

?I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don?t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.?

--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC

barb

4/3/2008 4:13:00 PM

0

butterflygrrrl wrote:
> On Apr 3, 1:25 am, kennethnoisewat...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Stop projecting, Paul.
>> no, I'm talking to you. Fuck off. Leave. You do nothing here. Fail.
>
> You are so pathetic.

If you "do nothing," what he does is worse than nothing. He highjacks
people who are looking for info on Scientology, steering them to his
halfassed sites instead of the well researched, well documented sites
put up by people like Andreas, Dr. Dave, Chris Owen and others.

Wonder if he still has the click thru stuff up that he said he took down
but they were still up and he said again he'd take them down and...

Guy's a fucking parasite!

--
Barb
Chaplain, ARSCC (wdne)
It's Poodlin' Time!

?I think that the protections that we enjoy for freedom of worship exist
so long as we don?t step over the line. When religious worship and
belief cross over into things like fraud, victimization of others and
the disruption of the political arena, that protection is no longer
appropriate.?

--Robert Goff
Professor Emeritus, UCSC

kennethnoisewater1

4/5/2008 10:46:00 AM

0

On Apr 3, 9:12 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:

> If you "do nothing," what he does is worse than nothing. He highjacks
> people who are looking for info on Scientology, steering them to his
> halfassed sites instead of the well researched, well documented sites
> put up by people like Andreas, Dr. Dave, Chris Owen and others.

There are so many Scientology websites out there. It's great that my
www.stopscientology.com website is #8 or #9 on Google for the search
"Scientology".

All I'm competing with in the top 10 is Xenu.net and other Scientology
owned websites. I'm steering people away from Scientology owned
websites to mine. I'm fine with that.

banchukita

4/5/2008 1:49:00 PM

0

On Apr 5, 5:46 am, kennethnoisewat...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:12 am, barb <xenub...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > If you "do nothing," what he does is worse than nothing. He highjacks
> > people who are looking for info on Scientology, steering them to his
> > halfassed sites instead of the well researched, well documented sites
> > put up by people like Andreas, Dr. Dave, Chris Owen and others.
>
> There are so many Scientology websites out there.  It's great that mywww..stopscientology.comwebsite is #8 or #9 on Google for the search
> "Scientology".
>
> All I'm competing with in the top 10 is Xenu.net and other Scientology
> owned websites.  I'm steering people away from Scientology owned
> websites to mine.  I'm fine with that.

1. It is not a "competition."

2. You could at least admit that research and checked facts are not
your forte, admit this publicly on your website without excuses, and
direct folks to better researched sites and information under that
header.