hello, i have a table that store information about bills, this table is
read constantly, and have close than 5'000.000 of registries. i ask
what is more eficient, have the table in a differente sql server
instance and connect with sql server, or have the table in the same sql
server instance. thanks

You don't give us much to go on, but as far as I can see, it will be cheaper for you if your queries
don't have to go to a linked server.

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/


"hongo32" <hongo32es (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

of which it forms is possible to be distributed the load, it did not
want that consulting all this information was made in the same server.
thanks

I'm afraid that I didn't understand that remark...

--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/


"hongo32" <hongo32es (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

I can see that it's faster run a select in the same sql server instance
that run a select of a table in a linked server. i want to run a query
in a diferent sql server instance, and run faster than a 'local' query.
exists a form to do that?

*OPENQUERY

but the real question would be wich server CAN proccess the query with more
speed.

what is your setup? will this query join tables on local and remote?
is the local heavily used, and you want remote for just this one "big" table
?

"hongo32" <hongo32es (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

i think that can be faster, because the server run a transactional
system that query other tables al the time, the problem is that the
server is not in production, we are in design time.... and i just want
to made the best decision for my design. i apreciate your colaboration.