"Ben" <pillars4@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:FURPi.1671$LD2.266@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> We recently upgraded our MS SQL Server 2000 to 2005.
>
> Here is what we did:
>
> 1. Perform backup of the database from the old server.
> 2. Created a blank database in the new server.
> 3. Restored the database into the blank database located in the new
> server.
>
> After this process, there was an obvious slowness in the MS Access
> application. Program-wise, I did not do any code changes. The only thing
> that we did was just this upgrade.
>
> I am leaning towards the netwok causing the slowness. But I do not know
> the issues that might slow down the application just because we upgraded
> the same database into SQL 2005.
>

"Ben" <pillars4@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:T%RPi.1672$LD2.1355@newssvr17.news.prodigy.net...
> The hardware configuration below:
>
> - Has two Intel Quad-Core Xeon processors
> - 10GB of RAM
> - 15,000RPM SATA hard drives
>
> The old server was just a regular P4, 4G RAM.
>

"Erland Sommarskog" <esquel@sommarskog.se> wrote in message
news:Xns99C8AFB6246FYazorman@127.0.0.1...
> Ben (pillars4@sbcglobal.net) writes:
>> We recently upgraded our MS SQL Server 2000 to 2005.
>>
>> Here is what we did:
>>
>> 1. Perform backup of the database from the old server.
>> 2. Created a blank database in the new server.
>> 3. Restored the database into the blank database located in the new
>> server.
>>
>> After this process, there was an obvious slowness in the MS Access
>> application. Program-wise, I did not do any code changes. The only
>> thing
>> that we did was just this upgrade.
>>
>> I am leaning towards the netwok causing the slowness. But I do not know
>> the issues that might slow down the application just because we upgraded
>> the same database into SQL 2005.
>
> Stastistics were invalidated when you upgraded to SQL 2005, so you need to
> run sp_updatstats.
>
> If that does not help, you need to analyse more closely what is slow. It's
> possible that the optimizer makes a different decision for some queries to
> the worse.
>
> Also, I would recommend that you try running the database in
> compatibility level 90. If you restored the database and did nothing
> more, it is in level 80. This is not likely to affect performance, but
> it may prevent you from using new features in SQL 2005 later on. On
> the other hand, there may be compatibility issues causing your queries
> to fail in level 90. You can switch back to 80 if this happens.
>
>
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se
>
> Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2005/downloads/books.mspx
> Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx

> We recently upgraded our MS SQL Server 2000 to 2005.
>
> Here is what we did:
>
> 1. Perform backup of the database from the old server.
> 2. Created a blank database in the new server.
> 3. Restored the database into the blank database located in the new
> server.
>
> After this process, there was an obvious slowness in the MS Access
> application. Program-wise, I did not do any code changes. The only thing
> that we did was just this upgrade.
>
> I am leaning towards the netwok causing the slowness. But I do not know
> the issues that might slow down the application just because we upgraded
> the same database into SQL 2005.