bigint field vs int

i am creating an application which the number of records will be beyond 100000 so i need to set the primary keys to bigint instead of int

i need to know about the performance and difference

will it affect the performance much and second will i have to change any code like delete,update

A standard Int ranges from -2,147,483,648 through 2,147,483,647 so you can use them to store values much larger than 100000.

If you do use bigints, you would need to use Int64 in your code

|||

HI,

There will be some performance difference in using int and bigint. If you use bigint the performance is slower in an 32 bit processer. But in case of a 64 bit processor the performance should not be a problem

|||

Int will give you up to 2,147,483,647 while Bigint gives up to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807. The only difference in your stored procedure is that you will need to change the parameter declarations from INT to BIGINT.

>i need to know about the performance and difference
Obviously more working memory will be required for BIGINT instead of INT (8 bytes instead of 4 for for each value), however SQL's will still work very efficiently provided there is enough RAM. If you only have enough RAM for INT, changing to BIGINT will put you at a disadvantage - so make sure you have enough RAM.

sql

Beyond SQL

Dear gurus,
Which are the most difficult tasks for a guru? Which would be the most
complex task concerning RDBMS?
I am not talking about administrative tasks, common routines, left join
issues, nested cursors, etc, but amazing milestones, strange jobs or
nightmares using the maximum capabilities of SQL engine.
Thanks in advance and regards,,How do you define "guru"?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP
http://www.datamanipulation.net
--
"Enric" <Enric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A450896-F654-43D4-9755-1C4A5C0580F2@.microsoft.com...
> Dear gurus,
> Which are the most difficult tasks for a guru? Which would be the most
> complex task concerning RDBMS?
> I am not talking about administrative tasks, common routines, left join
> issues, nested cursors, etc, but amazing milestones, strange jobs or
> nightmares using the maximum capabilities of SQL engine.
> Thanks in advance and regards,,|||"Enric" <Enric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A450896-F654-43D4-9755-1C4A5C0580F2@.microsoft.com...
> Dear gurus,
> Which are the most difficult tasks for a guru? Which would be the most
> complex task concerning RDBMS?
> I am not talking about administrative tasks, common routines, left join
> issues, nested cursors, etc, but amazing milestones, strange jobs or
> nightmares using the maximum capabilities of SQL engine.
> Thanks in advance and regards,,
The biggest hurdle I have seen lately is moving from a small to medium size
database architecture and schema and then designing and developing and
migrating that solution to a VLDB environment. There are a lot of potential
gotchas and mistakes that are made.
It is one thing to design speed and intelligence into a system that works
with 100 million rows and something else entirely when you are dealing with
billions of rows.
Just my .02
Rick Sawtell|||Trying to avoid the throngs of female fans while on public outings;
especially if they show up at user group meetings and sit on the front row
just drooling while you're trying to give a presentation. Then there are the
weird gs who walk up to the table (while at a restraunt with the wife and
kids) and shove some 20 page sample of crap SQL under your nose expecting
you to somehow shed some light on their problem between bites of veal
parmesan. Once you reach a certain level of popularity, it can be a real
problem.
"Enric" <Enric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9A450896-F654-43D4-9755-1C4A5C0580F2@.microsoft.com...
> Dear gurus,
> Which are the most difficult tasks for a guru? Which would be the most
> complex task concerning RDBMS?
> I am not talking about administrative tasks, common routines, left join
> issues, nested cursors, etc, but amazing milestones, strange jobs or
> nightmares using the maximum capabilities of SQL engine.
> Thanks in advance and regards,,|||I wouldn't call myself a guru, but what the hell.
For me, understanding the business is always the most critical and most
difficult part of my job. Until I understand how the business's data
IS - that is, what it is, what is an attribute of what, how it relates
within itself and how it flows - I am effectively spinning my wheels.
Free advice, freely given - worth what you pay for it.
Payson
> "Enric" <Enric@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9A450896-F654-43D4-9755-1C4A5C0580F2@.microsoft.com...|||LOL. Not to mention the paparizzi - who can script with all those camera
flashes?|||That's why we have body guards and ride around in limos with tented windows.
;-)
"Scott Morris" <bogus@.bogus.com> wrote in message
news:%23ffSONzoFHA.3120@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> LOL. Not to mention the paparizzi - who can script with all those camera
> flashes?
>

Beyond 8 GB memory

We upgraded our server to Windows 2003 Ent edition and added extra 8 GB memory to the machine, operating system sees all 16 GB also ent mgr properties shows all 16 GB memory, I assigned 14 GB to SQL server but perf monitor (total server memory) only shows 7GB memory, any reason for this?Did you restart your SQL Service?
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
"Sam Moayedi" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:CF7CA24D-D1FD-4C6F-A891-F9BBE6559DAC@.microsoft.com...
> We upgraded our server to Windows 2003 Ent edition and added extra 8 GB
memory to the machine, operating system sees all 16 GB also ent mgr
properties shows all 16 GB memory, I assigned 14 GB to SQL server but perf
monitor (total server memory) only shows 7GB memory, any reason for this?