"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.
> ======================================================
>
>
>
>
>

"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.
> ======================================================
>
>

"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.
>> ======================================================
>>
>>

"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.
> >> ======================================================
> >>
> >>
>
>

"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.
> ======================================================
>
>
>
>
>

"Md Ismail" <mija***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eF0$aoELIHA.2176@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> My SQL Express is consuming lots of memory(1GB out of 2GB) and CPU.
>
> We are developing a GPS data(multiple client) project where we used
> insert/query data in a particular GPS_LOG table (in SQL Express) in
> every 5/10 seconds . It was working fine!
>
> But later we discovered that SQL Express is eating lots of memory, and
> its memory eating grows steadily and rises upto 1GB (Max server memory
> is set to 1GB)!!!!
>
> And while testing with 15/20 clients we found it eats almost 75% of
> CPU!!!!!
> OMG!!!
>
> How can I tune my database to eat less Memory and CPU???
> Million dollar question for me!!! please help!!!
>
> I have been searching SQL Server database tuning techniques, but didn't
> get any thing satisfactory!!!!
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***