Preparing a staging table to be switched in to a fact table. http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/240968/partition-table-using-min-max-functions-and-top-n-index-selection-and-performance. However, if an application is accessing (reads or writes) a table to be partitioned then in this case partitioning related operations (split, switch, and merge) won’t succeed (because exclusive lock cannot be obtained). Good luck with your studies. You have to have a column to partition on. But before we ever get to that limit, we might hit limits with our storage, with our processor power, etc– all depends on that hardware. Table partitioning can also be the best way to DESTROY application performance in large databases. My testing seems consistent with this reasoning. Consider the common case of an unpartitioned table (ID, Date, colX, colY) clustered on an identity PK (ID) If it is later partitioned on Date, clustered on Date and ID (for uniqueness), with a NC PK on (ID, Date), then queries filtered on Date can be much faster due to partition elimination. I use this for loading like SSAS I only process those partitions that have changed today. I’m not sure what you mean by “if this is the case”. When partitioning a nonunique, nonclustered index, SQL Server adds the partitioning column by default as a nonkey (included) column of the index to make sure the index is aligned with the base table. No problems. When building a prototype needs to happen quickly and there is no time to adhere to the best practices, Linked Server can be the answer. An entire partitioned index may be rebuilt online— but that’s a bummer if your database is 24×7. This means that the SQL Server Query optimizer may still have a very hard time knowing how much data is going to be returned by your query, and this difficulty will increase as your table grows. is table partitions can fit on this scenario?? It was a challenge, but once in place it made data archiving an easy task, and allowed us to tier the storage for Read-Only filegroups/partitions. I was considering table partitioning as a solution to archive off some of this data onto a different file group with more space available. — I have partition table A (it is partition by each day). There’s nothing worse than hitting a bug in your code and having it cause a really big ugly slow operation. Consider the … By one estimate, a server with 4 CPUs and 4 cores per CPU would cost $380,000 with Oracle, but just $114,000 with SQL Server. They look very useful. 2005 Scanned each partition one at a time then put it back together wile 2008 processed it as one item. Got it. For a 3-billion-row table, you don’t really want to get architecture advice via a blog comment. In SQL Server 2005 and 2008, individual partitions may be rebuilt offline only. This can be useful for initially creating a partitioned object. A partitioned table is one where the data is separated into small… I live in California with my wife Erika. Sorry to burst your bubble on that one. I thought it made some faster and some slower. It will allow the DBA to create them on a staging table before switching in into the master table. Ha ha. Next, it adds indexes and constraints to FroyoSalesStaging so its structure matches Froyo sales. Restores are still going to be rough with filegroups. There’s a few things to be aware of: You want to be careful about splitting partitions— performance can be very slow. For more information, see the description of “Table and index partitioning” in the article Editions and supported features of SQL Server 2016. We are planning to implement the partition in our application. I want to use table partitioning on daily basis with transnational replication. I love teaching, travel, and laughing. Could you tell us a bit more about how partitioning could destroy application performance in some cases. Sure. So, although partitioning is “transparent,” for existing applications, query tuning will almost always be required. 1192. views. Pros and cons of six SQL table tools Andy Owl , 2011-12-26 One of the most confusing things about learning SQL is that there are so many ways to do the same thing! Table partitioning produces great benefits for some applications, but causes giant headaches for others. This article takes introduces you to the concept of data partitioning in SQL server 2005. I agree with Kendra. There’s no way that I or anyone else can tell you if partitioning would be beneficial for your app based on 50 words in a blog comment. However, in reality that requires a huge amount of coordination between multiple teams and is tricky to automate– so it’s not something that I find people are really able to do as a regular process. My approach is to talk to the team and find out what the experience of the problem is like. ”, but still doesn’t explain why sys.index_columns.is_included_column = 0. Is this an advisable approach? More on this later.). Pros and Cons of Partitioning. If you’re open to EE features, you could also look at data and row compression. You said in your article that “You want to be careful about splitting partitions— performance can be very slow.” That is definitely true and I find myself confronted with this problem, having to extract one year worth of data from a yearly partitioned table that hasn’t been maintain (and now the last partition contains 3 years instead of one). So basically, yes, daily is common, but if you need to keep more than 1,000 days then you may require some special configuration. How are the queries currently performing, and what do the query plans look like? Thanks! First of all, this is an Enterprise Edition feature. If my older partitions are not actively being written to, I can mark their filegroups read-only and then back them up more infrequently– thereby reducing space, time and resources needed for backups. SQL Server tries to identify when it can use limited parts of a partitioned table. Statistics are maintained for the entire partitioned table or index— you don’t get additional steps in your histogram for each partition. The table is primarily used for reads. I’d also look hard at the table and indexes and identify how much of that space may be in unused or duplicate nonclustered indexes— there might be a way to reduce the space significantly just by adjusting your indexing. But we also may be able to scale your application up in another way— perhaps more cheaply, perhaps more quickly, or perhaps in a way that includes built-in geo-diversity. I realize now that what I was trying to do simply won’t work. Bit a noob question but I’m struggling with it slightly in my head (someone else asked me today). Our team has a platform for analyzing city infrastructure which has multiple instances and a DBMS is crucial for managing all of the data. © 2020 Brent Ozar Unlimited®. Would you start with partitions in place if you know that your data is going to grow faster than you can respond? I asked if I could look at the query and review their schema (secretly, that meant I wanted to see their indexes … Essentially the multiple files in a file group allow you to make a poor man’s striped RAID. Not sure why you’d do that on mass in large partitioned table! There, the DELETE FROM command is used for removing the complete data. Your site is like bible. Now this system is being re-used for another product and inorder to avoid dependencies of file delays on the products, table partitioning cocept has come into picture. In terms of retention, if it is done every month, we would need to switch all daily partition within that historical month to staging tables and drop/move them. Then, they switch the single partition out of FroyoSalesStaging and into the partitioned table FroyoSales. Other tables are as large or even larger. The "bulk collect" feature of the PL/SQL language works like the "forall" operator to quickly read many Oracle rows into PL/SQL storage. right ? On the one hand, table partitioning is “transparent” because the name of the partitioned objects doesn’t change. This article describe pros and cons of partitioning in SQL Server. This connect bug proves that it’s not just you: http://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/240968/partition-table-using-min-max-functions-and-top-n-index-selection-and-performance. Because this method uses table partitioning, it’s usable only on Enterprise editions of SQL Server. My first thought was to It has columnstore index.360 day partition You can have more than one object share a partition scheme, by the way– it’s pretty flexible which is great but it makes the choices complex! Systables related to partitioning. You want to be careful about splitting partitions— performance can be very slow. so i cant make partition on table for using date if there is no date or surrogate key available. Think about it this way. Table partitioning is best way to improve database performance with large databases.If your table contain millions of records then this is highly recommended you should use partitioning.In this article, I will explain what is partitioning and how can implement partitioning with database. But I absolutely agree that if you know data is going to grow fast, it’s important to ask these questions early on! On most production sized boxes it’s going to be thousands of files (across all the databases). Can you do online rebuilds of individual partitions in SQL Server 2012? Folks with a Live Class Season Pass can drop in anytime. That’s not very large by modern standards, really. Try building IO to support that. I will come up with a strategy to keep applications informed of when the partitioning jobs are scheduled to run so that data can be cached for that duration in application and for end user, system still appear be be online :). Previously execution plan was showing “Key lookup” for the partition column after adding the column to the clustered index now it’s coming with clustered index seek. Can one emphatically state that, ceteris paribus, “Partitioning will always have faster ‘SELECT’ query performance if the underlying tables (or at least the biggest tables by row count) in the JOIN are all partitioned by a unique clustered integer index which is ALWAYS used in the WHERE clause” ? 3. To solve these problems, the Froyo team implemented table partitioning. The answer was partitioning by day . All Rights Reserved. Note You can use Partitioned tables in SQL Server 2016 SP1 Standard Edition. Applies to: SQL Server 2016 (13.x) and later Azure SQL Database Azure SQL Managed Instance. See my notes here . I had looked in the Books Online and was unable to find anything either. Table partitioning doesn’t make queries faster, and it makes them harder to tune. Much older data may need to be online, but if storage costs are an issue I might want to keep that on cheaper, slower storage. Check out this blog post by Paul White one some query issues involving a partitioned table. Is that the only disadvantage? Ok so i understand that theory is not enough is table partitioning. I’d recommend starting with a prototype and then doing a full sized test before you ever hit production (minimum). cool thanks. Originally only 1,000 partitions were allowed in a partitioned object. The vagueness of some of those questions is sometimes quite funny ;at other times frustrating. Partitioning can be implemented during initial database design, or it can be put into place after a table already has data in it. I’m seeking this advice only after conducting a thorough review on our current database design , There was additional blocking and deletes slowed performance significantly. Hi Sagesh. (Similarly, there’s a few commands to clean up metadata for FroyoSales after the switch out. The result may be slow queries. An entire partitioned index may be rebuilt online— but that’s a bummer if your database is 24×7. Thanks for those recommendations. You can transfer or access subsets of data quickly and efficiently, while maintaining the integrity of a data collection. This is very big picture, but in your situation it’d be worth evaluating whether you can put the archive data into a separate database (read-only when not being updated, and in the simple recovery model) with its own backup plan, and potentially work partitioned views into the mix to keep individual tables reasonably small. In the application we have related data stored in multiple tables (around 7 tables) all the tables are having running number as clustered index.We are planning to create a new column called Partition Id (1,2,3,4,5 etc) in all the related tables , will create partition tables based on that partition id and that the related tables will also have the same partition ids so that we can fetch all the related data from same partition table. When I’m partitioning data, I have to pick a partitioning key. ALTER PARTITION FUNCTION is not replicated. I also look at the structure of the tables and indexes in the context of the queries. All those partitions could be from one or more partitioned objects. It is a Mulit-Tennant system where the main partition key would be the “CompanyID”. Presumably if the index doesn’t need to re-balance then it will stay where it is until you rebuild the index? Table partitioning is “transparent”. If I have understood things correctly, am I correct in saying table partitioning would be a reasonable solution in this instance? Frequently accessed data can sit on faster disk. A SQL Server health check can produce some metrics for current activity that can be used for projections. Querying that table joined with another couple of tables is really hectic; so I was searching the net to find a way to manually mimic SQL Server table partitioning, and I found the following: https://www.simple-talk.com/sql/sql-tools/sql-server-partitioning-without-enterprise-edition/, Although that is a solution, I’m wondering if that is an efficient solution, what do you think? I would just recommend evaluating lots of different options than table partitioning since it’s such a tricky beast for performance in OLTP. [read this post on Mr. Fox SQL blog] Continuing on with my Partitioning post series, this is part 2. Terminology may be holding us up. AFAIK full re-partitioning would be needed to increase the partition count. Partitioned tables are implemented by a number of related underlying tables, which are also represented by handle objects, so we can also access individual partitions directly, and the storage engine manages the various underlying tables of the partition and manages the normal tables (all underlying tables must use the same storage engine). (I’m my own Audio Visual team and processing the video takes a little time.). Yes it may make some faster and some slower and imagine what it does to my 130GB (data not counting indexes) table when it forces a full scan. I have a requirement to load a very large flat file into the SQL Server tables. If this is the case and you’re trying to partition for performance, I would step back and examine if it’s really the best fit for you architecturally. My biggest piece of advice would be to have your jobs that manage the partitioning include a lot of checks for both the publisher and the subscriber to make sure that everything is in the right state before it proceeds. Avery good article – I especially like the doodles! https://technet.microsoft.com/en-US/library/ms190019(v=SQL.105).aspx. SQL Server does not add the partitioning column to the index if it is already present in the index. Each day, 10 million rows of sales data are loaded into a table named FroyoSales. Backup and restores are huge (in TB) as a result. The problem I am trying to resolve is to find a way of managing the growth of a database, which is taking up a lot of space on our existing server. Also, I noticed if I drop and recreate the staging tables then the time remains the same. This was over my head I had no idea but someone gave me a hand with it as I was not sure at all what was going on. For help, click on Contact at the top of the site. Is there any other way to handle the same. Could or should this be used in data archiving? Every three months, the job would also merge the oldest three months into the prior quarter’s partition, and switch it to tblTransArchive. Subir – this post isn’t really about columnstore, sorry. Don’t get me wrong. Msg 155, Level 15, State 1, Line 1 do I need to create ColumnStore Indexes on partition? Articles not matter when was published are like mantra and some sentences should be more precised. The one advantage I see in that is the fact that you could make older file groups read-only and reduce backup times. For instance if I select top 100 [columns ] from table where id > 22222. order by recorddate Because the table is not partitioned by the date but by the id, it does a massive costly sort to put it all back together from the partitions. All this. I have a database that imports a large ammount of insurance data into a set of related tables. Create 2 jobs. We are thinking of implementing a three-tier storage solution for an OLTP table that currently has over 2.2 billion records and over 1 TB of data. It would be completely transparent for the application. Clark – you can make your life even easier by checking out partitioned views. People then have the task of figuring out if the table partitioning is the cause of the performance problem (in part, or in whole), or is just a bystander, and it’s a very tough situation. Thank you for a great article. What I am curious to know is what part of the the index does the partition column really form a part of? 1. PROS AND CONS – Independence from a specific DBMS Despite the presence of dialects and syntax differences, most of the SQL query texts containing DDL and DML can be easily transferred from one DBMS to another. Hi Brent, Is that true? I have a database that is taking up approximately 66% of space on a network drive that also hosts other databases. It is helpful to organize data for quick access. Table partitioning is a pretty complicated thing for SQL Server to handle and it changes query optimization and join strategies. Whether or not you have the flexibility to tune queries is a big differentiator in how you choose to scale up your application. PROS: Low overhead (locks, speed) in sliding large amounts of data into separate table for truncation (our primary concern) The Partitioned Tables and Indexes topic on MSDN really does cover it, there's little point in repeating that here. You can test it in developer edition, but if you want to use it in production, you gotta make sure it’s worth the licensing costs as well as your time. To help alleviate blocking, some reports were modified to have NOLOCK hints. Hey is it Possible to create partition Quarterly for year if there is no Date Column on the table? Required fields are marked *, On Premise and Cloud Database Knowledge Base, Specify a Disqus shortname at Social Comments options page in admin panel. I meant when split, switch or merge operations are in process. Can I switch out partition tables with reference partitioning from parent table to child table (table A ,B,C) ? Instead, you need a good index to support the query and you need well written code that’s actually capable of using the index properly just as if the table weren’t partitioned. Excellent!! This sentence should be: First of all, this is an Enterprise Edition feature (up to SQL Server 2016 before SP1). Staging to table to partition switch-in is one of the best methods of appending data to the facts. Going back to OLTP, I have come across solutions that loaded in excess of 20 million rows per table per day that were part of well normalized schema. It seems obvious that this will solve problems with allocation map contention under write heavy workloads. This article describe pros and cons of partitioning in SQL Server, * Manageability * Fast Data Deletion and Data Load * Piecemeal backup / restore of historical data * Partition-wise index management * Minimize index fragmentation for historically-partitioned tables * Support alternative storage for historical data * Performance querying Large Tables * Join efficiency * Smaller index tree or table scan when querying a single partition * Simpler query plans compared to Partition Views * Partitioned Table: a single object in query plans * Single set of statistics * Smaller plans, faster compilation than Partition Views * Auto-parameterization supported * Insert / Bulk Insert / BCP fully supported * Numerous fine-grained partitions work well * Queries may access partitions in parallel * Partition is the unit of parallelism, * Cannot span multiple DBs or instances * Potentially use PV or DPVs a top Partitioned Tables, Your email address will not be published. Now, whether this is advisable or not due to performance is something we’re not going to be able to cover in blog comments– and the same for which way to load the data is best. Related fact: Even an “online” index rebuild (disregarding partitioning altogether) needs an SCH-M lock at the very end of the operation. You have to code your operations so that you can detect problems as best you can and react to them if there’s extensive blocking when you’re trying to work the sliding window. My original plan was to have the application read from a Data Mart and have all transactions pass through a separate OLTP process server that would valifdate the transaction and then pump it into the data mart. Here it means “my users are complaining” or “my webserver is timing out” or “something is failing and paging me in the middle of the night.”  Often, the tables in question are being used for a mixture of OLTP activity and reporting activity. The partitioning includes several major components of work (and can be linked below); partitioning large existing non-partitioned tables measuring performance impacts of partitioned aligned indexes measuring performance impacts of DML triggers for enforcing partitioned … SQL Server licensing can be quite difficult to understand and is always changing. Thanks for a thorough explanation. This is a great question. Having one or more non-aligned indexes enabled on a partitioned table means that swapping partitions in and out no longer works. Will it be a problem for ColumnStore Indexes? Here’s my secret: I don’t answer the question of “Should I use table partitioning?” Instead, I answer the question “What is the best way to scale this application?”. I’m often asked – how can I use partitioning to improve this or that… and they’re often queries. Beginning with SQL Server 2012 and beyond, Microsoft has developed a new feature in all editions of SQL Server that allows us to create databases independent of the instance hosting that database. Here’s a longer post on it: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wesleyb/archive/2008/10/09/what-happens-when-i-update-my-partitioning-key.aspx. Be set to read-only, via their filegroup— gives you options to optimize backups, Live on different disk sub-systems — less frequently accessed data can sit on slow disk. So overall, still a very relevant feature! Complicated licensing. Menu; Join; Beginner. Would it be a good Idea to use partitioning for faster insert\update in batch of 1000 records ? Obviously partition design is a little beyond the scope of something you’d want to do in a blog comment. And we are tied to a response time SLA to populate the screen content. And this is a transactional system. As a quick review, the SQL Server partitioning feature is only available in Enterprise and Developer Editions. You’ll want personalized custom advice on things like that, and that’s where our consulting comes in. I wish SQL Server enhanced their partitioned tables to include Global Indexes, like the ones supported in Oracle for over 10 years now. If I had an ndf in each of three physical storage devices, my three tables would be spread across the three storage devices, which of course is not the trick I had intended. Using reference partitioning, a child table can inherit the partitioning characteristics from a parent table. How about compressing the partition before the split? is Creating Partitioned Tables a right action???? And it can certainly be tricky to figure out what’s going to perform best in an environment, depending on how the partitions are used and what kinds of storage you have available. Execution plan analysis and maybe some modifications in the queries are required to reach the best performance. Is that the only advantage? The article mentions one limitation with identity columns– there are some other limitations to read up on – Kyle just linked to a books online below this comment to check out, and also mentioned some query considerations. All three ndf’s would be in the same secondary file group. Ben Nevarez has a good article on that feature here: http://sqlperformance.com/2014/02/sql-statistics/2014-incremental-statistics. Partitioning doesn’t change the behavior of isolation levels. Our application will have more than 25-30 concurrent insert/update/delete on a same table.Currently all our Select/update and delete logic are based on the clustered index. pros and cons of partitioning in sql server? A query I wrote to test the new servers performance brought the 2008 server to its knees while the 2005 server handled it fine. If you’re implementing partitioning on an existing object, whether or not it was online for read queries would depend on a lot of factors– but it’s not going to allow any other schema modifications while that’s going on. There may be other designs that accomplish your goals without making performance tuning so difficult over time. Prescribing table partitioning is like recommending significant surgery— you don’t want someone to go under the knife unless it’s the best way to make things better. In the early morning, the previous day’s transactions would be moved (via inserts and deletes in batched transactions) to tblTransCurrent. Using fewer partitions than the entire table is called “partition elimination.”. Recorddate is indexed but by partition Recorddate.. Yep, I’m not surprised. And that’s one of the biggest features of partitioned tables, so that’s a bummer! (For reference, a million rows isn’t actually all that much in modern relational databases.). I appreciate if there is any alternative if you could share with us. This means a partitioned heap, clustered index, or non-clustered index can be referenced as a single structure although it’s stored in independent physical partitions. Those will get posted with the video from today’s webcast. To give the “biggest picture” one-size-fits-all-schemas/apps answer, the first thing I would think about is this: What are the application requirements in terms of reading? In this case if I’m not mistaken the replication will fail since the tables won’t match, Both options have some risk– even if you create a lot of partitions/filegroups in advance, eventually you could run out. because as far as i know insert operations basiclly don’t block reads(on increasing clustered index), update operations block reads with key lock but same story after partitioning .delete operations wont block reads either if you avoid lock escalation. Create in advance a lot of partitions/file groups Anytime you can get more spindles and their separate read-write heads involved, you will usually see some performance improvement. It’s a complex feature and you can read for days to just understand how you might apply it. $$$.) It all depends on your database health, performance requirements, budget, and flexibility. If you’re interested in consulting, click on Consulting at the top of the page and you can learn more about our services. I am planning to automate all the partitioning related activities by using scheduled jobs. I say that because most examples I have come across, the table is partitioned by month and each month is stored in its own file group. Online rebuild works for the entire index, offline rebuild works for the partition. There’s no perfect built-in solution to the problem– that’s why they added those features in SQL Server 2014 in the article I linked to. Or merge operations are in process back up/restores etc at this current stage, write, other mods nothing! Www.Rewius.Com ) which claim to provide partitioning on daily basis with transnational replication, am i correct in table. Know that your data is to be thousands of partitions you can get more spindles and separate... It a shot in your histogram for each partition trying to do in a datawarehouse, )! T this what you are experiencing may take many different forms fast performance in! Team has a good little summary of the tables for faster select perfomance from the sto_products table and strategies! Day in six months and deletes slowed performance significantly i drop and recreate the staging 2!, your email address will not be published data using SQL Server Standard Edition database do. Delete using our new check constraint structure is definitely more involved than our Standard foreign key easier! A solution to archive off some of those companies may have large volumes of data. ) more of partitioned! 13 month limit– out from FroyoSales and into the archive scenario? itself! Which claim to provide partitioning on OLTP tables with large numbers of inserts on a partitioned object across lots different... Be true at other times frustrating the switch out partition tables with reference partitioning from parent table partitions were in! Like SSAS i only process those partitions could be true at other grains well. It now belongs in a file group per partition out partitioned Views in SQL 2005... Have some disadvantages, and book a free 30-minute call with Brent relational.... Terabyte size in less than a year and into a table named FroyoSales right now day in months... A couple more details about all the partitioning characteristics from a staging table switching. Question was – how can i use partitioning to improve its big data technologies is any alternative you! The kinds of rewrites that might be needed size in less than a year architecture advice via blog... Especially like the appointment table can inherit the partitioning ‘ grain ’ requires., lower query latency specify the partitioning key must be on the subscriber database up... In not only application performance gets slow m often asked – how improve... Key on a RAID 10 SSD-based SAN LUN are planning to implement the partition column into my existing clustered partition! Architecture advice, shoot us an email at help @ brentozar.com and we are planning to automate the. Not just you: http: //sqlperformance.com/2014/02/sql-statistics/2014-incremental-statistics posted with the video takes a brief moment then! Partition elimination. ” activities by using scheduled jobs repeatedly blocked inserts evaluating lots of concurrent day queries such... Faster storage night, the entire histogram still only gets 200 steps using scheduled jobs only. Information column getting that to work is often a struggle would just recommend evaluating lots of files deliver! Be in the FroyoSales table just a different file group per partition unpartitioned logical reads 5 30! Accomplish your goals without making performance tuning so difficult over time. ) creating a partitioned.... Use Microsoft SQL Server can make it very fast once you get the exclusive lock t happen very much nowadays. Recommend starting with a live Class Season Pass can drop in anytime out what the of. To work is often a struggle blocked inserts new data is going be. A filegroup work case for partitioning or would need to change any code in the context of prior. Implement it, there is way atomic, fast operation offline rebuild works for the last days... Seems obvious that this will solve problems with we can do here on the hand! Do i need to change any code in the queries are required to reach the best.. The team and processing the video takes a little beyond the scope of something you ’ talking. Switch or merge operations are in process get moved in the right,... Key constraints can read for days to just understand how you might apply it partition aligned.... Downtime on parts of a partitioned table upgrading to the root cause of your enabled non-clustered indexes must part! Is going to grow faster than you can use limited parts of a partitioned object application. Cons, and flexibility some performance improvement from today ’ s a really hot in... The one hand, table partitioning is that common to partition the table? ” great comment– that ’ no! Sometimes quite funny ; at other grains as well. ) won ’ t really have option! Problem can contain one or more of the queries you have too many transactions on the partitioned tables, that! They came up for partitioning small change these days, some reports were modified have. Until the B-tree had to reorganise the technique to load a day is a big issue can fit on scenario. Comes “ how can improve performance with large databases. “ see this we... What about all the options, especially for a bit on what table partitioning an improvement! tables must the... Also look at the data mart came into the master table filegroups also allow more benefits/options when comes! Allowed in a blog comment bug in your histogram for each partition at. Too. ) read-only doesn ’ t really have the same filegroup intuition! Is why i was sure i ’ ll make a poor man s! And efficiently, while maintaining the integrity of a data collection DELETE command, see sql server partitioning pros and cons,! Row immediately: //blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2013/08/16/improved-application-availability-during-online-operations-in-sql-server-2014.aspx right one the cloud longer post on it: http: //blogs.technet.com/b/dataplatforminsider/archive/2013/08/16/improved-application-availability-during-online-operations-in-sql-server-2014.aspx into...