Best approach?

I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server datab
ase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my
applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000
records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of
purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can prog
ramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 1500
00 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move data
to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I wou
ld first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then query
the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read o
nly), there are no updates to the system.
Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestions
? Thanks!I would find another host for this particular client rather than do a dog an
d
pony dance. I actually like to spend time with my family, so your mileage ma
y
vary. :-)
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:

> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database th
at are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my applications,
however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes t
he
database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another database from the hos
t so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the tables up based on ID, for instan
ce if recordID < 150000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID
> 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a
student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then
query the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read on
ly
), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>|||Any suggestions for economical SQL Server hosting?

I would find another host for this particular client rather than do a dog an
d
pony dance. I actually like to spend time with my family, so your mileage ma
y
vary. :-)
--
Gregory A. Beamer
MVP; MCP: +I, SE, SD, DBA
***************************
Think Outside the Box!
***************************
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:
> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server dat
abase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of
my applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 2700
00 records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought o
f purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can pr
ogramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 15
0000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move da
ta to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I w
ould first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then quer
y the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read
only), there are no updates to the system.
>
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>|||You could have a second db and then use a Partitioned View. That way you do
n't have to put any logic into the app at all.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Shawn Ferguson" <SFergus2@.cscc.edu> wrote in message news:uBn5eDuFGHA.216@.T
K2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server datab
ase that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my
applications, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000
records which makes the database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of
purchasing another database from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can prog
ramatically split the tables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 1500
00 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID > 150000 then move data
to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a student, I wou
ld first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then query
the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read o
nly), there are no updates to the system.
Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestions
? Thanks!|||I use Webhost4life... really cheap...
www.webhost4life.com ( $10 Month 300 MB)
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server ( PASS) and it''s
community of SQL Professionals.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> You could have a second db and then use a Partitioned View. That way you
don't have to put any logic into the app at all.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Shawn Ferguson" <SFergus2@.cscc.edu> wrote in message news:uBn5eDuFGHA.2
16@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database
that are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my application
s, however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes
th
e database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another data
base from the host so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the t
ables up based on ID, for instance if recordID < 150000 then move this data
to sql server 1. If record
ID > 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the s
ystem for a student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or le
ss than 150000 then query the proper table. The data in the system is only
used for retrieval (read on
ly), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggest
ions? Thanks!
>
>|||If your constraint is definitely the 100MB limit, your approach is fine. The
method you used is called horizontal partitioning. As Andrew Kelly mentioned
in the other reply, you should use a view to do it. Goto SQL Server Books
Online and search for "partitioning data".
Dennis
"Shawn Ferguson" wrote:

> I have a problem. My website hosting company can only host sql server database th
at are less than 100 mb. Usually that is not a problem for most of my applications,
however I have one client who has a database with over 270000 records which makes t
he
database over 100MB. What can I do? I thought of purchasing another database from the hos
t so I'll have 200MB then I can programatically split the tables up based on ID, for instan
ce if recordID < 150000 then move this data to sql server 1. If recordID
> 150000 then move data to sql server 2. Then when I want to query the system for a
student, I would first check the recordID for greater than or less than 150000 then
query the proper table. The data in the system is only used for retrieval (read on
ly
), there are no updates to the system.
> Do you think this approach is incorrect or do you have any other suggestio
ns? Thanks!
>