"Neil" <nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:bTXSi.7102$Pv2.3736@newssvr23.news.prodigy.ne t...
>
>>> Since there's a big jump in the size, I was wondering if there's
>>> anything
>>> I need to do maintenance-wise to help the database use the new data.
>>
>> That's still very small as far as SQL databases go.
>
> Right. I just meant that it was almost double the original size. Wasn't
> sure if there was any kind of maintenance that should be done.

Nothing more than the usual. Backups, do a DBCC CheckDB on a regular basis.
Perhaps update stats from time to time, monitor your indices.

>
>>
>> Not sure how access documents, but a decent index on that (some sort of
>> ID, unique name or something) will make things work well most likely.
>
> Yes, each record has a unique ID for the record. These two fields are just
> two of many fields in the record.
>
>>
>> (BTW, you may want to look into upgrading the DB to use something like
>> SQL Express edition. More modern, better supported and may be a bit
>> faster, especially on a Windows 2003 box.)
>
> SQL Express? I thought SQL Express was the new version of SQL
> Desktop/MSDE. Maybe I'm wrong.

It is. For many smaller applications, it's a great choice. For a 1 gig
database, I'd certainly consider it.

>
> We're using the full version of SQL 7, and are upgrading to SQL 2005.

Didn't want to suggest that if it wasn't in the budget.

>
> Thanks,
>
> Neil

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html