If the performance is good enough, for some definition of good, then don't fix what ain't broke. If we partition the data by this field and then re-run a query for a particular batch, we should be able to run set statistics io ON before and after partitioning and see a reduction in IO. If batch is a part of proper indexes, it will reduce number of rows that need to be read regardless of partitioning. 主にSQL Server パーティション分割の効果について説明する。 1. But this too may be premature optimisation. なお、「パーティション分割」後の、テーブル・インデックスを、 「パーティション テーブル」と「パーティション インデックス」と呼ぶ。 1.1. If you are interested in data partitioning (including partitioning into multiple file groups) then I recommend reading articles by Kimberly Tripp, who gave an excellent presentation at the time SQL Server 2005 came out about the improvements available there. All you have essentially done there is increased the overhead in working with the "table" in the first place by having several instances (i.e. SQL Server 2016 SP1: the latest innovations now available in every edition With SQL Server 2016 SP1, Microsoft will include key enterprise-class features in every edition of SQL Server 2016. I have a client with a 6 million row table in SQL Server that contains 2 years worth of sales data. If it's as bad as you say, the difference should be evident. The main database is what the application was driven off of so these tables looked and felt like ordinary tables (except some quirky things around updating). That's why these days due to the volume of data being handled by databases, it's wise to design the application in such a way that ever query is limited by some broader group such as time, geographical location or such so that when such columns are chosen for partitioning you'll gain maximum benefits. These include the same features available with SQL Server on Linux: In-Memory OLTP, Columnstore, RLS, and DDM. I don't think that you are really going to gain anything by partitioning the table across multiple databases in a single server. I would suggest instead of using additional databases to hold large tables you look into the Filegroup topic in SQL Server Books Online or for a quick review see this article: http://www.mssqltips.com/tip.asp?tip=1112 . これをパーティション分割でお読みください- SSD上のSQL Server-テーブルパーティション 。 #2に関しては、この方法で設計するとテーブルが断片化されます。 『sqlパフォーマンス詳解』の翻訳者の松浦隼人さんに、8つの「sqlが重たくなる原因とその対策」を聞きました。 この更新プログラムでは、Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Service Pack 2 (SP2) でテーブルにパーティションが1つしかない場合に、パーティションテーブルのクエリパフォーマンスが向上します。, この更新プログラムは、SQL Server の次の service pack に含まれています。, サービスパックは累積されます。 Service Pack は累積的であり、 最新の Service Pack には新しい修正プログラムと共に、それ以前の Service Pack に含まれていたすべての修正プログラムが含まれています。 このサービスパックの最新の service pack と最新の累積的な更新プログラムを適用することをお勧めします。 最新の service pack をインストールする前に、以前のサービスパックをインストールする必要はありません。 最新の service pack と最新の累積的な更新プログラムの詳細については、次の記事の表1を参照してください。, SQL Server とそのコンポーネントのバージョン、エディション、および更新プログラムのレベルを確認する方法, ソフトウェアの更新を説明するために Microsoft が使用する 用語について説明します。. I suspect that the situation described is an attempt to have the physical storage of certain large tables on different spindles from the rest of the tables. When I've had to partition tables in the past (pre-2005), it's usually by a date column or something similar, with a view over the various partitions.