Numbers of DB in SQL

Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
Thanks.
The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainly
no problem.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
|||Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with 2
GB of RAM.
"David Portas" wrote:

> The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
> some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainly
> no problem.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
>
|||David,
I think that when David Portas mentioned "appropriate hardware", he didn't
mean that there's some magic formula for 45 databases. It depends on what
those databases are doing -- how much data they contain, how many users
concurrently use each of them, what those users are doing, etc. If each
database has 100 concurrent users doing million-row queries, you'll quickly
run into a problem. On the other hand, if each database has 1 table with 10
rows of data and has a query run against it once a week, you'll be able to
support thousands of databases
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
"David" <David@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:668C567C-E459-4ABB-A1F7-129BBADD6EB8@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with
2[vbcol=seagreen]
> GB of RAM.
> "David Portas" wrote:
certainly[vbcol=seagreen]
|||David,
In addition to David's and Adam's excellent responses, you may find
limitations with SQL-DMO which will manifest through Enterprise Manager.
After a certain number of databases, you will find that enumeration of
databases will take a long time when you expand the databases node in
the tree. At some point you will find that it takes longer than you are
willing to wait for it, and you will have to administer your databases
using T-SQL.
SMO in SQL Server 2005 addresses this issue by using partial
instantiation (aka delayed instantiation) and caching.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
David wrote:
> Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
> Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
> Thanks.
>
sql

Numbers of DB in SQL

Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
Thanks.The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainly
no problem.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with 2
GB of RAM.
"David Portas" wrote:
> The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
> some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainly
> no problem.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
>|||David,
I think that when David Portas mentioned "appropriate hardware", he didn't
mean that there's some magic formula for 45 databases. It depends on what
those databases are doing -- how much data they contain, how many users
concurrently use each of them, what those users are doing, etc. If each
database has 100 concurrent users doing million-row queries, you'll quickly
run into a problem. On the other hand, if each database has 1 table with 10
rows of data and has a query run against it once a week, you'll be able to
support thousands of databases :)
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"David" <David@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:668C567C-E459-4ABB-A1F7-129BBADD6EB8@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with
2
> GB of RAM.
> "David Portas" wrote:
> > The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
> > some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is
certainly
> > no problem.
> >
> > --
> > David Portas
> > SQL Server MVP
> > --
> >
> >
> >|||David,
In addition to David's and Adam's excellent responses, you may find
limitations with SQL-DMO which will manifest through Enterprise Manager.
After a certain number of databases, you will find that enumeration of
databases will take a long time when you expand the databases node in
the tree. At some point you will find that it takes longer than you are
willing to wait for it, and you will have to administer your databases
using T-SQL.
SMO in SQL Server 2005 addresses this issue by using partial
instantiation (aka delayed instantiation) and caching.
--
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
David wrote:
> Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
> Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
> Thanks.
>

Numbers of DB in SQL

Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
Thanks.The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainly
no problem.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--|||Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with 2
GB of RAM.
"David Portas" wrote:

> The documented limit is 32767 databases per server instance, so you have
> some way to go yet! With the appropriate hardware 45 databases is certainl
y
> no problem.
> --
> David Portas
> SQL Server MVP
> --
>
>|||David,
I think that when David Portas mentioned "appropriate hardware", he didn't
mean that there's some magic formula for 45 databases. It depends on what
those databases are doing -- how much data they contain, how many users
concurrently use each of them, what those users are doing, etc. If each
database has 100 concurrent users doing million-row queries, you'll quickly
run into a problem. On the other hand, if each database has 1 table with 10
rows of data and has a query run against it once a week, you'll be able to
support thousands of databases
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.sqljunkies.com/weblog/amachanic
--
"David" <David@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:668C567C-E459-4ABB-A1F7-129BBADD6EB8@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks for replied my post. My server is a Dell 8450 Quad-processors with
2[vbcol=seagreen]
> GB of RAM.
> "David Portas" wrote:
>
certainly[vbcol=seagreen]|||David,
In addition to David's and Adam's excellent responses, you may find
limitations with SQL-DMO which will manifest through Enterprise Manager.
After a certain number of databases, you will find that enumeration of
databases will take a long time when you expand the databases node in
the tree. At some point you will find that it takes longer than you are
willing to wait for it, and you will have to administer your databases
using T-SQL.
SMO in SQL Server 2005 addresses this issue by using partial
instantiation (aka delayed instantiation) and caching.
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
David wrote:
> Is there a limitation of how many db you can have in SQL Standard Edition?
> Will it cause problem if we have too much? somewhere around 45 DBs.
> Thanks.
>

Number of users

Quick question, is there a limitation on the number of users that can get into SQL server at one time? Say 1500 or 2000 users? If not, I wonder how many users can actually cause the performance of the server to have a significant drop.
Thanks
SHKThere is a pretty hard limit at 32000 users, but I think it could be broken given sufficient hardware. I'm not sure that it makes any sense to even go there, other than as an academic exercise because it smacks of poor system design. A federated replicated approach allows practically infinite growth from an application perspective.

Most servers will crunch LONG before you even begin to approach the limits of the database engine. The number of supportable users usually depends on the RAM use more than anything, although the I/O bus often factors into that decision too.

-PatP|||Are you talking about connections or users?

You should keep your transactions short AND your connections as few as possible...

Get in Get out...

I use connection pooling, and even though I may have thousands of users, I'll only up a set number of connections..that stay open...for connection pooling purposes...

Why do you ask?

Sounds like a web app

Number of concurrent users

Hello,

There was a 5 concurrent user limitation in MSDE (the version prior to SQL Express). Does that same limitation exist with SQL Express 2005?

Thanks.

Hi Val,

First off, there was not actually a 5 concurrent user limitation in MSDE, this was a myth. Check out Euan Garden's blog describing the true functionality of the MSDE workload governer if you're interested in the history of all this: http://blogs.msdn.com/euanga/archive/2006/03/09/545576.aspx.

As for SQL Express, there is no limit to the number of users; the workload governer has been completely removed. We do limit you to a single CPU, 1 GB of memory and 4 GB of user data per database.

Regards,

Mike Wachal
SQL Express team

|||Mike,

Thanks a lot for your reply and for the link to the Blog. Very interesting.