2005, worth it performance wise ? | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

2005, worth it performance wise ?

Hi, I’m thinking about moving my 2000 server to 2005. I’ve read in some microsoft publicity paper that 2005 can improve query speed up to 70-80 % (Actual quote fromhttp://download.microsoft.com/downl…15d-f02ade638ebe/SQLServer2005_WhyUpgrade.doc
:"Database query response times have improved 70#8722;80 percent for many applications converted from SQL Server 2000 to SQL Server 2005"). I was wondering if anybody has seen results close to that on their databases ?
Thanks, Max
Please review my post called "learn from my failed 2005 upgrade" for some things to watch out for.
Hi Merrill, I’ve read ur post, so what is the result after the problem? are u keeping the SQL Server 2000 as ur application database or instead stilll giving a chance with SQL Server 2005 and try to overcome its performance problem?
quote:Originally posted by merrillaldrich Please review my post called "learn from my failed 2005 upgrade" for some things to watch out for.

Have you planned or attempting to host a development environment for an upgrade from 2000 to 2005?
If not I suggest to do so and take help of upgrade advisor too in this regard, as I believe every implementation & database is different to each others/ Satya SKJ
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Writer, Contributing Editor & Moderator
This posting is provided AS IS with no rights for the sake of knowledge sharing. The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes of mind.
The ultimate result of our failed upgrade was to roll back to SQL 2000 (and lose some data). Not a good experience. I still very much like 2005, but I had underestimated the jump in CPU load when upgrading, and our server is not up to the task. There was no good way for me to measure this ahead of time, which was the reasoning for posting the whole thing here.
some/many of you may think i am excessive in
1. recommending system replacement cycles of 1-2 years,
basically, a really critical db replaced in 1yr,
rolling the existing system to a secondary task, QA, etc
2. pushing 4 racks of external storage (4×14=56 disks, 56x36G = 2TB)for a mere 100GB database well i never like to be caught short of raw horse power
be it CPU or disks, expect new CPU to be 40% better each year per Moore’s law

I’m right there with you, Joe — but the guy with the checkbook wants each machine to last three years, and he’s not budging <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ />