Performance degradation on sql server 2005

Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
reduce blocking...
>From most indicators return times are not any faster
In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
is
We have 32G of ram on a xeon
4 cpu hyperthreaded
Config
lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
max memory 25G
Min memory 1G
Not sure what I am missing here
Your input will be highly appreciatedMass
After upgrading to SQL Server 2005 , did you update statistics as well as
rebuilding indexes on the databases?
"Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159184263.874445.285230@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Moved from sql server 2000 to 2005 .Applied snapshot isolation to
> reduce blocking...
> In 2000 we had awe enabled and in 2005 64 bit on 64 bit os non of that
> is
> We have 32G of ram on a xeon
> 4 cpu hyperthreaded
> Config
> lock pages in memory granted to sql server account ...
> max memory 25G
> Min memory 1G
> Not sure what I am missing here
> Your input will be highly appreciated
>|||Thanks for your response Uri
I did not rebuild indexes but for sure update statistics every day or
some analyst will call me on that .Is it necessary to rebuild indexes?
Uri Dimant wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Mass
> After upgrading to SQL Server 2005 , did you update statistics as well as
> rebuilding indexes on the databases?
>
>
> "Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1159184263.874445.285230@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...|||Hi
Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables to do
that on weekly period
"Massa Batheli" <mngong@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159187341.666362.282160@.i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for your response Uri
> I did not rebuild indexes but for sure update statistics every day or
> some analyst will call me on that .Is it necessary to rebuild indexes?
>
> Uri Dimant wrote:
>|||On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
> Yes , it is. I'd sugget you rebuild a heavy updated/inserted tables to do
> that on weekly period
Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
Kind regards
robert|||Robert Klemme wrote:
> On 25.09.2006 14:36, Uri Dimant wrote:
> Is that actually common practice with SQL Server? I have never read
> such a suggestion in Oracle land and it seems pretty impractical for
> DB's that are large or frequently used (24x7).
> Kind regards
> robert
Yes, it is, depending on the type of index, keys involved, etc. For
instance, an index build on a non-sequential key will fragment as new
key values are inserted into middle portions of the index.
Here's an article explaining it in more detail:
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...agmentation.asp
I have a script that will check the fragmentation of each index,
rebuilding those that are badly fragmented:
http://realsqlguy.com/serendipity/a...realsqlguy.com|||I'd beg to differ. A VLDB is a VLDB. Regardless of what platform it is on,
the challenges are the same or similar. In this case, if it is a very large
table with little 'down time' for maintenance, running index rebuilds
regularly (or even occasionally) is just not practical.
Linchi
"Tracy McKibben" wrote:

> Robert Klemme wrote:
> Yes, it is, depending on the type of index, keys involved, etc. For
> instance, an index build on a non-sequential key will fragment as new
> key values are inserted into middle portions of the index.
> Here's an article explaining it in more detail:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...agmentation.asp
> I have a script that will check the fragmentation of each index,
> rebuilding those that are badly fragmented:
> http://realsqlguy.com/serendipity/a.....htm
l
>
> --
> Tracy McKibben
> MCDBA
> http://www.realsqlguy.com
>|||here here.. I totally agree with Linchi. Often, the advice to simply rebuild
indexes is given unnecessarily.
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
"Linchi Shea" <LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:07A7E217-1824-4FE4-9367-11DAF263DB83@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> I'd beg to differ. A VLDB is a VLDB. Regardless of what platform it is on,
> the challenges are the same or similar. In this case, if it is a very
> large
> table with little 'down time' for maintenance, running index rebuilds
> regularly (or even occasionally) is just not practical.
> Linchi
> "Tracy McKibben" wrote:
>sql