Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
rossbevin
Starting Member
34 Posts |
 Posted - 2007-03-29 : 17:56:59
|
| Hi there,I am an application programmer who uses SQL Server; I'm not an expert and just know the basics. Our application has approximately 300 SQL tables and each table has just one primary index. We don't have stored procedures and only have 3 Views that a couple of reports use. Our database is approximately 26GB in size. We are planning on migrating from SQL 2000/Windows Server 2000 to SQL 2005/Windows Server 2003. Before doing this I decided to do some bench mark testing. I chose a simple SELECT statement on one of our larger tables. On SQL 2000 it ran in 22 seconds whereas on SQL 2005 it ran in 34 seconds.These are the steps I have done to try and improve performance, all to no avail.I tried both a passive and active upgrade and the results were the same. The passive way was to remove 2000, install 2005, create a new database and restore from a 2000 backup into the new 2005 database. The active way was to leave 2000 on the server with the database attached and upgrading to 2005.I did not change any defaults on the database except I have set the compatibility level to SQL 2005.The collation is set to SQL_Latin1_General_CP1_CS_AS.I have run an Optimize Index Task.I have run a Rebuild Index Task.I have run an Update Statistics Task.I have defragged the drive that the database resides on.Can anyone explain why SQL 2003 is dramatically slower than 2000?Any help would be greatly appreciated. |
|
|
SwePeso
Patron Saint of Lost Yaks
30421 Posts |
|
|
|
|
|
SQL 2005 50% Slower Than 2000