Does SQL2000/MSDE run on XP Tablet?

Hello there,

i have a great doubt: does MSDE run on XP Tablet Edition? I bought a beautiful notebook but didn't notice that it runs XP tablet...

Thanks in advance

Yes it does

Does SQL 2005 purchase come with access to SQL 2000 media?

My company is planning to purchase a SQL2005 standard Processor license (unlimited users - about $5000)

Does anyone know if we can obtain SQL2000 media along with the purchase. Because of the app we are running and its stage of development, we have to install and run SQL2000 for about 6 months before we can run Sql2005. We dont want to purchase SQL2000 for such a short term use.

I asked a DELL rep to help me with this over a month ago and he still has no answers for me.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Already answered this question ton the setup & upgrade forum:

My previous response:

SQL Server 2000 is not provided with SQL Server 2005. Some components that ship with SQL Server 2005 will update existing SQL Server 2000 components to address any compatibility issues.

You have a couple of options:

* Use the SQL Server 2000 eval for the time being. Not sure if it is still available

* Use SQL Server 2000 MSDE, as it is a free download. Not sure if it is still available

* Use SQL Server 2005 but run the database(s) in SQL Server 2000 (version 8) compatibility mode.

Thanks,

Peter Saddow

|||

I believe that the SQL 2005 license covers using a downlevel version. However, for definitive answers to licensing questions, call the licensing folks at:

Licensing –VL Contact
(800) 426-9400

You will have to contact Microsoft Fullfillment to obtain the media, or if you have access to your MSDN subscription...

Does SP4 client work OK with SP3a server?

Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a server?
We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before we upgrade the
servers.
Thanks
Rondid you hear examnotes <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> say in
news:0D2D4D7E-7BAF-4600-A545-0B2FB6E82291@.microsoft.com:

> Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a
> server? We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before
> we upgrade the servers.
> Thanks
> Ron
I have a mix of 3a and 4 and my client db libs are 4. you should be ok.
(My 2)
Neil MacMurchy
http://spaces.msn.com/members/neilmacmurchy
http://spaces.msn.com/members/mctblogs|||You won't be able to use Query Analyzer's debugger against the SP3a
servers. In SP4, Microsoft upgraded the debugger to use the .NET
framework. Other than that, there should be no problems.
Josh
Ron wrote:
> Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a server
?
> We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before we upgrade th
e
> servers.
> Thanks
> Ronsql

Does SP4 client work OK with SP3a server?

Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a server?
We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before we upgrade the
servers.
Thanks
Rondid you hear =?Utf-8?B?Um9u?= <Ron@.discussions.microsoft.com> say in
news:0D2D4D7E-7BAF-4600-A545-0B2FB6E82291@.microsoft.com:
> Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a
> server? We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before
> we upgrade the servers.
> Thanks
> Ron
I have a mix of 3a and 4 and my client db libs are 4. you should be ok.
(My 2¢)
--
Neil MacMurchy
http://spaces.msn.com/members/neilmacmurchy
http://spaces.msn.com/members/mctblogs|||You won't be able to use Query Analyzer's debugger against the SP3a
servers. In SP4, Microsoft upgraded the debugger to use the .NET
framework. Other than that, there should be no problems.
Josh
Ron wrote:
> Can a SQL2000 SP4 client connect without problems to a SQL2000 SP3a server?
> We are planning on updating all the client pcs to SP4 before we upgrade the
> servers.
> Thanks
> Ron

Does RS process sleep?

I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an hour.
Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
request.
Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
Please help!!What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5 minutes.
That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that can be set but
I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of my head. The
auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
> hour.
> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
> request.
> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
> Please help!!
>
>|||Auto-refreshes means scheduling report?
Actually I tried an every 3 minutes schedule report.
But it didn't work for my case.
Anyway, I will try the IIS configuration.
Thanks.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OXDxAt6%23FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5
> minutes. That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that can
> be set but I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of my
> head. The auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
> Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
> news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
>> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
>> hour.
>> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
>> request.
>> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
>> Please help!!
>>
>|||Layout, report tab, autorefreshes checkbox. Once you have a report that
autorefreshes then open it and leave it up. This has worked for me both with
RS 2000 and RS 2005.
Bruce Loehle-Conger
MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
"Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
news:OzI$fDD$FHA.504@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Auto-refreshes means scheduling report?
> Actually I tried an every 3 minutes schedule report.
> But it didn't work for my case.
> Anyway, I will try the IIS configuration.
> Thanks.
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OXDxAt6%23FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5
>> minutes. That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that can
>> be set but I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of my
>> head. The auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
>> Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>>
>> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
>> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
>> hour.
>> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
>> request.
>> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
>> Please help!!
>>
>>
>|||Yes, it works.
Thanks again.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egpp%23KE$FHA.2036@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Layout, report tab, autorefreshes checkbox. Once you have a report that
> autorefreshes then open it and leave it up. This has worked for me both
> with RS 2000 and RS 2005.
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
> news:OzI$fDD$FHA.504@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Auto-refreshes means scheduling report?
>> Actually I tried an every 3 minutes schedule report.
>> But it didn't work for my case.
>> Anyway, I will try the IIS configuration.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:OXDxAt6%23FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5
>> minutes. That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that
>> can be set but I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of
>> my head. The auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
>> Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>>
>> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
>> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
>> hour.
>> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
>> request.
>> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
>> Please help!!
>>
>>
>>
>|||That is called Application Pool in IIS. Go to IIS Manager, under Applocation
Pools node, right click "DefaultAppPool" in which the Reporting Server work
process is running, select properties. On "Performace" tag, you will see, by
default, the app pool will shut down if being idle for 20 min. You can
extend this time to 8x60min 480min, so that the app pool will not shut down
for a regular working day. However, the first report reader of the day, will
hit the delay. You may schedule a dummy report at beginning of a work day
for this.
"Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OXDxAt6%23FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5
> minutes. That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that can
> be set but I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of my
> head. The auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
> Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
>
> --
> Bruce Loehle-Conger
> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>
> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
> news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
>> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
>> hour.
>> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
>> request.
>> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
>> Please help!!
>>
>|||Wow, This is what I was looking for.
Thank you.
"Norman Yuan" <NotReal@.NotReal.not> wrote in message
news:uSWtdkQ$FHA.532@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> That is called Application Pool in IIS. Go to IIS Manager, under
> Applocation Pools node, right click "DefaultAppPool" in which the
> Reporting Server work process is running, select properties. On
> "Performace" tag, you will see, by default, the app pool will shut down if
> being idle for 20 min. You can extend this time to 8x60min 480min, so that
> the app pool will not shut down for a regular working day. However, the
> first report reader of the day, will hit the delay. You may schedule a
> dummy report at beginning of a work day for this.
>
> "Bruce L-C [MVP]" <bruce_lcNOSPAM@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OXDxAt6%23FHA.328@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> What I do is have a very simple report that auto-refreshes every 5
>> minutes. That keeps it alive. There is also an IIS configuration that can
>> be set but I haven't used it and I don't remember it off the top of my
>> head. The auto-refresh is pretty easy hack though.
>> Instead of 5 minutes you could set it longer than than (30 minutes?).
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Loehle-Conger
>> MVP SQL Server Reporting Services
>>
>> "Aki Nomura" <anomura@.jtb.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23TPmKK1%23FHA.3104@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>>I tried both SQL2000 & SQL2005.
>> But both servers RS processes sleep if no users access to them over an
>> hour.
>> Once it sleeps, the user has to wait 20 seconds to start responding the
>> request.
>> Is this normal? Is there anyway to prevent this waiting time?
>> Please help!!
>>
>>
>

Does MS know SQL2005 query performance is slower than SQL2000?

Hi,

I tested a simple query like Select colA from TableB where colC= 'XX' with SQL2000 and SQL2005.

Of course, Index is same, number of records are same.

After I execute that query and checked it with profiler. SQL2000 just took 18 ms but SQL2005 took 118 ms in my environment. Actually, the machine that is installed SQL2005 has better H/W spec than SQL2000.

I could not belive that so I tested several times but SQL2005 was slow.

After I searched this forum, I found that some guys had same problem with SQL2005 performance. I rebuilt index in SQL2005 but didn't work.

Even though I am using SP2, it is still slow than SQL2000.

Am I missing somthing? I could not understand how it could happen.

Does anybody have any solution?

Thank you in advance

James

did you clear the proc cache before running the procedures? Running the commands below will ensure that you are running both sprocs on common ground:

DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE

Also, you can't always go by the time it takes to run a query. You really need to compare the logical reads returned by running the command SET STATISTICS IO ON before you run the statements to compare the reads. If your reads are drastically different, something may be funky.

Tim|||

Tim,

Thank you for answer.

Actually, before I tested, I restarted all services so it was not a problem of cache.

In addition, reads in profile log of SQL2005 is more than SQL2000 which is not strange based on the result.

Funny thing is speed is smiliar after data is cached. This problem happened when I tried data from disk.

I am not sure what is wrong.

I should discuss it with MS support soon.

Thank you

James

|||After you upgraded the database to SQL 2005 did you update the stats or rebuild the indexes? It's recommended to update the stats on the tables and indexes after upgrading to SQL 2005 to get proper query plans in SQL 2005.|||

Thank you Denny for replying

Unfortunately, it didn't work

Actually, I didn't migrate DB from SQL2000. I just created exactly same DB as SQL2000.

100ms is not a big deal for a SQL statement but if a stored procedure has 1000 sql statements. It will be 100,000ms which is a big.

This can explain why same stored procedure is slower than SQL2000.

James.

|||

Try optimising the data disks:

1) Set the disk to Basic disk

2) If the disk subsystem is RAID, set the stripe size to 64k, and the controller cache to 100% write.

3) Using DISKPART, create the partition using the command CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY ALIGN=64

4) Format the data disk with a cluster size of 64k.

Now you're ready to go from the disk side of things!

|||Does the execution plans show the SQL Servers taking the same path to the data? Where do the cost differences show up?|||

Danny and BigE

Thank you for replying.

Well. Execution plan is exactly same. I am not sure where it comes from.

As I said the machine that has SQL2005 is better H/W spec so I don't think it is a problem of H/W as BigE said.

I might try to do as BigE suggested but I could not agree we should set this for running SQL2005.

Think about that. SQL2005 is advanced version than SQL2000 which is 7 years ago!! Why does user consider about those kinds of disk setting? Even though it is ture, what is the big benefit of upgrading to user who is using small or medium application?

Anyway, If you have two machine that has SQL2000 and SQL2005, just try a select statement and check read and duration.

You will notice what I am saying..

James.|||

Hi James,

Did you get the solution as you described?

I have same problem and I cannot find any solutions.

Please help.

Clara

|||

Thank you BigE

I think your suggestion might improve performance but here is my concern about using SQL2005.

If it is a problem of Disk speed, Why does MS provide a fucntion to make DATABASE on top of the MEMORY DISK?

In other words, MS can create MEMORY DISK DATABASE in SQL2008 for better performance !

Maybe they will say to me that I am crazy but... If you can use UPS, then SQL server can dump that memory database to Disk during UPS is working.

Anyway, I could not buy that reason becaue , As I said, the SQL is running slower server than SQL2005.

By copying Clara,

Sorry, I could not find the solution yet. One of MS consultant that I know gave to me some suggestion but it doesn't work.

Maybe I should try SQL2008 CTP instead of SQL2005

Regards,

James Lim

Does MS know SQL2005 query performance is slower than SQL2000?

Hi,

I tested a simple query like Select colA from TableB where colC= 'XX' with SQL2000 and SQL2005.

Of course, Index is same, number of records are same.

After I execute that query and checked it with profiler. SQL2000 just took 18 ms but SQL2005 took 118 ms in my environment. Actually, the machine that is installed SQL2005 has better H/W spec than SQL2000.

I could not belive that so I tested several times but SQL2005 was slow.

After I searched this forum, I found that some guys had same problem with SQL2005 performance. I rebuilt index in SQL2005 but didn't work.

Even though I am using SP2, it is still slow than SQL2000.

Am I missing somthing? I could not understand how it could happen.

Does anybody have any solution?

Thank you in advance

James

did you clear the proc cache before running the procedures? Running the commands below will ensure that you are running both sprocs on common ground:

DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE

Also, you can't always go by the time it takes to run a query. You really need to compare the logical reads returned by running the command SET STATISTICS IO ON before you run the statements to compare the reads. If your reads are drastically different, something may be funky.

Tim|||

Tim,

Thank you for answer.

Actually, before I tested, I restarted all services so it was not a problem of cache.

In addition, reads in profile log of SQL2005 is more than SQL2000 which is not strange based on the result.

Funny thing is speed is smiliar after data is cached. This problem happened when I tried data from disk.

I am not sure what is wrong.

I should discuss it with MS support soon.

Thank you

James

|||After you upgraded the database to SQL 2005 did you update the stats or rebuild the indexes? It's recommended to update the stats on the tables and indexes after upgrading to SQL 2005 to get proper query plans in SQL 2005.|||

Thank you Denny for replying

Unfortunately, it didn't work

Actually, I didn't migrate DB from SQL2000. I just created exactly same DB as SQL2000.

100ms is not a big deal for a SQL statement but if a stored procedure has 1000 sql statements. It will be 100,000ms which is a big.

This can explain why same stored procedure is slower than SQL2000.

James.

|||

Try optimising the data disks:

1) Set the disk to Basic disk

2) If the disk subsystem is RAID, set the stripe size to 64k, and the controller cache to 100% write.

3) Using DISKPART, create the partition using the command CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY ALIGN=64

4) Format the data disk with a cluster size of 64k.

Now you're ready to go from the disk side of things!

|||Does the execution plans show the SQL Servers taking the same path to the data? Where do the cost differences show up?|||

Danny and BigE

Thank you for replying.

Well. Execution plan is exactly same. I am not sure where it comes from.

As I said the machine that has SQL2005 is better H/W spec so I don't think it is a problem of H/W as BigE said.

I might try to do as BigE suggested but I could not agree we should set this for running SQL2005.

Think about that. SQL2005 is advanced version than SQL2000 which is 7 years ago!! Why does user consider about those kinds of disk setting? Even though it is ture, what is the big benefit of upgrading to user who is using small or medium application?

Anyway, If you have two machine that has SQL2000 and SQL2005, just try a select statement and check read and duration.

You will notice what I am saying..

James.|||

Hi James,

Did you get the solution as you described?

I have same problem and I cannot find any solutions.

Please help.

Clara

|||

Thank you BigE

I think your suggestion might improve performance but here is my concern about using SQL2005.

If it is a problem of Disk speed, Why does MS provide a fucntion to make DATABASE on top of the MEMORY DISK?

In other words, MS can create MEMORY DISK DATABASE in SQL2008 for better performance !

Maybe they will say to me that I am crazy but... If you can use UPS, then SQL server can dump that memory database to Disk during UPS is working.

Anyway, I could not buy that reason becaue , As I said, the SQL is running slower server than SQL2005.

By copying Clara,

Sorry, I could not find the solution yet. One of MS consultant that I know gave to me some suggestion but it doesn't work.

Maybe I should try SQL2008 CTP instead of SQL2005

Regards,

James Lim

Does MS know SQL2005 query performance is slower than SQL2000?

Hi,

I tested a simple query like Select colA from TableB where colC= 'XX' with SQL2000 and SQL2005.

Of course, Index is same, number of records are same.

After I execute that query and checked it with profiler. SQL2000 just took 18 ms but SQL2005 took 118 ms in my environment. Actually, the machine that is installed SQL2005 has better H/W spec than SQL2000.

I could not belive that so I tested several times but SQL2005 was slow.

After I searched this forum, I found that some guys had same problem with SQL2005 performance. I rebuilt index in SQL2005 but didn't work.

Even though I am using SP2, it is still slow than SQL2000.

Am I missing somthing? I could not understand how it could happen.

Does anybody have any solution?

Thank you in advance

James

did you clear the proc cache before running the procedures? Running the commands below will ensure that you are running both sprocs on common ground:

DBCC DROPCLEANBUFFERS
DBCC FREEPROCCACHE

Also, you can't always go by the time it takes to run a query. You really need to compare the logical reads returned by running the command SET STATISTICS IO ON before you run the statements to compare the reads. If your reads are drastically different, something may be funky.

Tim|||

Tim,

Thank you for answer.

Actually, before I tested, I restarted all services so it was not a problem of cache.

In addition, reads in profile log of SQL2005 is more than SQL2000 which is not strange based on the result.

Funny thing is speed is smiliar after data is cached. This problem happened when I tried data from disk.

I am not sure what is wrong.

I should discuss it with MS support soon.

Thank you

James

|||After you upgraded the database to SQL 2005 did you update the stats or rebuild the indexes? It's recommended to update the stats on the tables and indexes after upgrading to SQL 2005 to get proper query plans in SQL 2005.|||

Thank you Denny for replying

Unfortunately, it didn't work

Actually, I didn't migrate DB from SQL2000. I just created exactly same DB as SQL2000.

100ms is not a big deal for a SQL statement but if a stored procedure has 1000 sql statements. It will be 100,000ms which is a big.

This can explain why same stored procedure is slower than SQL2000.

James.

|||

Try optimising the data disks:

1) Set the disk to Basic disk

2) If the disk subsystem is RAID, set the stripe size to 64k, and the controller cache to 100% write.

3) Using DISKPART, create the partition using the command CREATE PARTITION PRIMARY ALIGN=64

4) Format the data disk with a cluster size of 64k.

Now you're ready to go from the disk side of things!

|||Does the execution plans show the SQL Servers taking the same path to the data? Where do the cost differences show up?|||

Danny and BigE

Thank you for replying.

Well. Execution plan is exactly same. I am not sure where it comes from.

As I said the machine that has SQL2005 is better H/W spec so I don't think it is a problem of H/W as BigE said.

I might try to do as BigE suggested but I could not agree we should set this for running SQL2005.

Think about that. SQL2005 is advanced version than SQL2000 which is 7 years ago!! Why does user consider about those kinds of disk setting? Even though it is ture, what is the big benefit of upgrading to user who is using small or medium application?

Anyway, If you have two machine that has SQL2000 and SQL2005, just try a select statement and check read and duration.

You will notice what I am saying..

James.|||

Hi James,

Did you get the solution as you described?

I have same problem and I cannot find any solutions.

Please help.

Clara

|||

Thank you BigE

I think your suggestion might improve performance but here is my concern about using SQL2005.

If it is a problem of Disk speed, Why does MS provide a fucntion to make DATABASE on top of the MEMORY DISK?

In other words, MS can create MEMORY DISK DATABASE in SQL2008 for better performance !

Maybe they will say to me that I am crazy but... If you can use UPS, then SQL server can dump that memory database to Disk during UPS is working.

Anyway, I could not buy that reason becaue , As I said, the SQL is running slower server than SQL2005.

By copying Clara,

Sorry, I could not find the solution yet. One of MS consultant that I know gave to me some suggestion but it doesn't work.

Maybe I should try SQL2008 CTP instead of SQL2005

Regards,

James Lim

Does a large amount 'image' data affect overall SQL performance?

Recently we added a new table into our SQL2000 database specifically to store scanned in images of documents. This new table contains a PK field, a couple of datetime fields, a couple of char(1) fields and one 'image' field.

Before adding this table, the database size was approx 6GB. Six months after adding this new table, the database has grown to 18GB - 11GB of this is due to the scanned in images.

Would this new table affect the SQL performance with regards to accessing other data in the database that has nothing related to the new table?

If so, would moving this new table into it's own database be recommended?

Thanks

Rod

In order to determine the 'best' response to your question, you may find this article useful.

Images –Store in Database or Store in File System
http://research.microsoft.com/research/pubs/view.aspx?msr_tr_id=MSR-TR-2006-45