Performance of SQL Server Express

For a small company with say 6 concurrent users, a database of say 10 Mbytes
and using only normal tables and indices (nothing fancy), will there be any
significant performance differences between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL
Server Express?
Thanks,
--
John Austin10MBs? I think you can safely say that Express won't be an issue and you
will see no differences in performance between Express and Workgroup on a db
that size.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"John Austin" <John.Austin@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:72834DEC-E5FC-4787-A9AB-91CC3F0953B7@.microsoft.com...
> For a small company with say 6 concurrent users, a database of say 10
> Mbytes
> and using only normal tables and indices (nothing fancy), will there be
> any
> significant performance differences between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL
> Server Express?
> Thanks,
> --
> John Austin|||Hi John,
I do not think that there will be any significant performance differences
between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL Server Express Edition for your
scenario. However if you encountered any performance issue, you may refer
to the following article:
Troubleshooting Performance Problems in SQL Server 2005
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx
If you have any other questions or concerns, pelase feel free to let us
know. Have a nice day!
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Thanks, Charles.
I have now been asked the same question about a simple 300 MB database with
10 to 15 users (virtually all access via primary keys). Do you know of any
guidance regarding the number of users and database size and recommended SQL
edition?
Thanks
--
John Austin
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi John,
> I do not think that there will be any significant performance differences
> between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL Server Express Edition for your
> scenario. However if you encountered any performance issue, you may refer
> to the following article:
> Troubleshooting Performance Problems in SQL Server 2005
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx
> If you have any other questions or concerns, pelase feel free to let us
> know. Have a nice day!
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>|||That is virtually impossible to tell based on so little data. Each app does
things differently and the data and schemas are different. Size of the DB
means little as to how many users it can support if it is properly tuned. If
most access is via PK's it makes the process very efficient, especially if
the PK is clustered to avoid BookMark Lookups. The only way to know for sure
is to test it under your exact conditions but you are probably safe.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"John Austin" <John.Austin@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:B0F1C03C-0107-43A2-A5F4-9659DB45EF44@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Charles.
> I have now been asked the same question about a simple 300 MB database
> with
> 10 to 15 users (virtually all access via primary keys). Do you know of any
> guidance regarding the number of users and database size and recommended
> SQL
> edition?
> Thanks
> --
> John Austin
>
> "Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
>> Hi John,
>> I do not think that there will be any significant performance differences
>> between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL Server Express Edition for your
>> scenario. However if you encountered any performance issue, you may refer
>> to the following article:
>> Troubleshooting Performance Problems in SQL Server 2005
>> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx
>> If you have any other questions or concerns, pelase feel free to let us
>> know. Have a nice day!
>> Best regards,
>> Charles Wang
>> Microsoft Online Community Support
>> =====================================================>> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
>> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
>> from this issue.
>> ======================================================>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> ======================================================>>
>>|||Andrew,
It is always tempting to over specify, just to be on the safe side. It is
helpful to talk to someone who has used the scenario in practice.
Thanks,
--
John Austin
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> That is virtually impossible to tell based on so little data. Each app does
> things differently and the data and schemas are different. Size of the DB
> means little as to how many users it can support if it is properly tuned. If
> most access is via PK's it makes the process very efficient, especially if
> the PK is clustered to avoid BookMark Lookups. The only way to know for sure
> is to test it under your exact conditions but you are probably safe.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "John Austin" <John.Austin@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:B0F1C03C-0107-43A2-A5F4-9659DB45EF44@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks, Charles.
> >
> > I have now been asked the same question about a simple 300 MB database
> > with
> > 10 to 15 users (virtually all access via primary keys). Do you know of any
> > guidance regarding the number of users and database size and recommended
> > SQL
> > edition?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > John Austin
> >
> >
> > "Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi John,
> >> I do not think that there will be any significant performance differences
> >> between SQL Server Workgroup and SQL Server Express Edition for your
> >> scenario. However if you encountered any performance issue, you may refer
> >> to the following article:
> >> Troubleshooting Performance Problems in SQL Server 2005
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/tsprfprb.mspx
> >>
> >> If you have any other questions or concerns, pelase feel free to let us
> >> know. Have a nice day!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Charles Wang
> >> Microsoft Online Community Support
> >> =====================================================> >> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> >> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> >> from this issue.
> >> ======================================================> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.
> >> ======================================================> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>|||Hi Jason,
Thanks for your feedback.
Actually database size and the number of users are not the factors for
database performance. Assume that a very large database with a great many
of historical data, but the real operations are based on several tables
which only contain very few records. In other words, there is a job
scheduled to remove the old records to history tables which are only for
report sometimes. In this case, if every T-SQL statement can finish within
a very short time, it is possible that your SQL Server can handle hundreds
of connections in parallel. Of course the CPU licensing of your server need
to be able to support so many connections. I think that the real
performance here depends on your database design, server capability and
network bandwidth.
Appreciate your understanding that it is hard to say that there is any
performance issue with only knowing your database size and the number of
users. It is a good practice that you perform a test environment to see if
you encounter any performance issue before you put it into your production
environment. If you encounter any performance issue during your test
process, please feel free to post back. We are very glad to assist you
further.
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Thanks, Charles,
Express and Workgroup both have limits on processor count and memory usage.
The limit on database size should not be a problem and is easily
quantifiable. Presumably, if one is just reading data, CPU usage is not the
limiting factor, however I suspect memory usage may be. Is there a way of
tracking the memory usage of SQL Server standard in order to see if the
Express memory limits will impact performance?
Thanks,
--
John Austin
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> Hi Jason,
> Thanks for your feedback.
> Actually database size and the number of users are not the factors for
> database performance. Assume that a very large database with a great many
> of historical data, but the real operations are based on several tables
> which only contain very few records. In other words, there is a job
> scheduled to remove the old records to history tables which are only for
> report sometimes. In this case, if every T-SQL statement can finish within
> a very short time, it is possible that your SQL Server can handle hundreds
> of connections in parallel. Of course the CPU licensing of your server need
> to be able to support so many connections. I think that the real
> performance here depends on your database design, server capability and
> network bandwidth.
> Appreciate your understanding that it is hard to say that there is any
> performance issue with only knowing your database size and the number of
> users. It is a good practice that you perform a test environment to see if
> you encounter any performance issue before you put it into your production
> environment. If you encounter any performance issue during your test
> process, please feel free to post back. We are very glad to assist you
> further.
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>|||One of the best indicators of lack of memory for things like queries is the
Page Life Expectancy counter in Perfmon found under the SQL Server Buffer
Manger object. The higher the counter the better it is. This is the
estimated number of seconds a typical data page will stay in cache before
being swapped out. Values under 100 start to indicate poor memory
utilization. This is true regardless of edition. But if your db size is
only 300MB then if you have the recommended 1GB on the machine this should
not be an issue.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"John Austin" <John.Austin@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:561F12DF-DD1E-40EE-BA30-7BAA3E5F69D9@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks, Charles,
> Express and Workgroup both have limits on processor count and memory
> usage.
> The limit on database size should not be a problem and is easily
> quantifiable. Presumably, if one is just reading data, CPU usage is not
> the
> limiting factor, however I suspect memory usage may be. Is there a way of
> tracking the memory usage of SQL Server standard in order to see if the
> Express memory limits will impact performance?
> Thanks,
> --
> John Austin
>
> "Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
>> Hi Jason,
>> Thanks for your feedback.
>> Actually database size and the number of users are not the factors for
>> database performance. Assume that a very large database with a great many
>> of historical data, but the real operations are based on several tables
>> which only contain very few records. In other words, there is a job
>> scheduled to remove the old records to history tables which are only for
>> report sometimes. In this case, if every T-SQL statement can finish
>> within
>> a very short time, it is possible that your SQL Server can handle
>> hundreds
>> of connections in parallel. Of course the CPU licensing of your server
>> need
>> to be able to support so many connections. I think that the real
>> performance here depends on your database design, server capability and
>> network bandwidth.
>> Appreciate your understanding that it is hard to say that there is any
>> performance issue with only knowing your database size and the number of
>> users. It is a good practice that you perform a test environment to see
>> if
>> you encounter any performance issue before you put it into your
>> production
>> environment. If you encounter any performance issue during your test
>> process, please feel free to post back. We are very glad to assist you
>> further.
>> Best regards,
>> Charles Wang
>> Microsoft Online Community Support
>> =====================================================>> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
>> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
>> from this issue.
>> ======================================================>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>> ======================================================>>|||Thanks Andrew, I will check that out. I am suggesting 4 GB for the server,
which may be over the top for this app, so we should be OK.
--
John Austin
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> One of the best indicators of lack of memory for things like queries is the
> Page Life Expectancy counter in Perfmon found under the SQL Server Buffer
> Manger object. The higher the counter the better it is. This is the
> estimated number of seconds a typical data page will stay in cache before
> being swapped out. Values under 100 start to indicate poor memory
> utilization. This is true regardless of edition. But if your db size is
> only 300MB then if you have the recommended 1GB on the machine this should
> not be an issue.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
> "John Austin" <John.Austin@.nospam.nospam> wrote in message
> news:561F12DF-DD1E-40EE-BA30-7BAA3E5F69D9@.microsoft.com...
> > Thanks, Charles,
> >
> > Express and Workgroup both have limits on processor count and memory
> > usage.
> > The limit on database size should not be a problem and is easily
> > quantifiable. Presumably, if one is just reading data, CPU usage is not
> > the
> > limiting factor, however I suspect memory usage may be. Is there a way of
> > tracking the memory usage of SQL Server standard in order to see if the
> > Express memory limits will impact performance?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > John Austin
> >
> >
> > "Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jason,
> >> Thanks for your feedback.
> >>
> >> Actually database size and the number of users are not the factors for
> >> database performance. Assume that a very large database with a great many
> >> of historical data, but the real operations are based on several tables
> >> which only contain very few records. In other words, there is a job
> >> scheduled to remove the old records to history tables which are only for
> >> report sometimes. In this case, if every T-SQL statement can finish
> >> within
> >> a very short time, it is possible that your SQL Server can handle
> >> hundreds
> >> of connections in parallel. Of course the CPU licensing of your server
> >> need
> >> to be able to support so many connections. I think that the real
> >> performance here depends on your database design, server capability and
> >> network bandwidth.
> >>
> >> Appreciate your understanding that it is hard to say that there is any
> >> performance issue with only knowing your database size and the number of
> >> users. It is a good practice that you perform a test environment to see
> >> if
> >> you encounter any performance issue before you put it into your
> >> production
> >> environment. If you encounter any performance issue during your test
> >> process, please feel free to post back. We are very glad to assist you
> >> further.
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >> Charles Wang
> >> Microsoft Online Community Support
> >> =====================================================> >> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> >> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> >> from this issue.
> >> ======================================================> >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> >> rights.
> >> ======================================================> >>
> >>
>|||Thanks for your feedback, John.
4GB is also the maximum database size that SQL Server 2005 Express can
support now. If your database size can be controlled under 4GB below, it
will be fine for your solution.
Just feel free to let us know if you encounter any issue in future. We are
very glad to work with you for further assistance.
Have a nice day!
Best regards,
Charles Wang
Microsoft Online Community Support
=====================================================When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
from this issue.
======================================================This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
======================================================|||Thank you for your kind assistance, Charles
--
John Austin
"Charles Wang[MSFT]" wrote:
> Thanks for your feedback, John.
> 4GB is also the maximum database size that SQL Server 2005 Express can
> support now. If your database size can be controlled under 4GB below, it
> will be fine for your solution.
> Just feel free to let us know if you encounter any issue in future. We are
> very glad to work with you for further assistance.
> Have a nice day!
> Best regards,
> Charles Wang
> Microsoft Online Community Support
> =====================================================> When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via
> your newsreader so that others may learn and benefit
> from this issue.
> ======================================================> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
> ======================================================>
>
>