All geek questions in one place

Can you get around SQL Server Express size limits by stacking databases?

My company is working on a development project using SQL Server 2008 Express. The amount of data that we plan to store in our main table will quickly exceed the 4 GB Express limit. We can buy ourselves some time with SQL Server 2008 R2, but in the end we will also exceed the 10 GB limit.

The team leader wants to hear all the options available before purchasing licenses for Standard Edition. The experts available in our company are SQL Server and Oracle, so using MySQL or PostgresSQL will be considered the last resort.

The only alternative I can think of is a design in which the main table is horizontally divided into separate, different databases. In addition, a central database will be created to store information about where the data is stored.

For example, all the data in the table for 2008 will be stored in the data DB_2008, 2009 in DB_2009, etc. A metadata table might look like this:

PKStartDate  PKEndDate   DBName
-----------  ----------  ----------
2008-01-01   2008-12-31  DB_2008
2009-01-01   2009-12-31  DB_2009
2010-01-01   2010-12-31  DB_2010

This table will be used to determine the location of the database for our stored procedures. Most of our code already uses parameterized dynamic SQL, so this will not be easy to implement.

Has anyone ever done this before?

Is there an established model for this type of design or is it just a terrible idea?

+3
6

, , , , - , , - .

EDITED: Workgroup? Express , Workgroup, $3500 , Standard. , , - , , CAL, .: -)

+13

. IANAL, SQL Server . "" -.

, , . , , .

.

+7

, - , - ,

  • ,
  • .

, . , 12- , ... .

, , . EDIT. : , sql.

+4

, !:) 10 , 1 . 10 , , , ( ).

, varbinary , 10 , Filestream.

+3

, , , ( ..). / , , , , .

+2

- SQL Server? , sql- ( ), .

+1

Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/1752890/

More articles:


All Articles