Take the 2-minute tour ×

We have a sql 2000 database thats about 1.2 gb big and a website pointing at said database. We are looking to upgrade to sql 2005 and are in the process of testing this transition. we took the mdf and log files from the 2000 instance and copied them over to another machine running 2005 and attached them.

we then benchmark our site first pointing at the sql 2000 instance and then pointing at the 2005 instance.

Initial tests on the website indicate that the site performs substantially slower on the 2005 instance. I have tried setting the compatibility level from the default sql 2000 (80) to sql 2005 (90) and that slowed it down even more.

Does anyone know why ? Am I missing something glaringly obvious ? What could we do to improve the 2005 performance ?

Any help is greatly appreciated.

share|improve this question

migrated from stackoverflow.com Feb 18 '10 at 11:31

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

Also have you considered moving to SQL 2008 as 2005 is getting long in the tooth now? –  Sim Feb 18 '10 at 11:54
Are these 2 machines of comparable specs? –  Sam Feb 18 '10 at 13:55
add comment

2 Answers

Have you tried rebuilding the indexes, updating the statistics and updated the usage stats? These are really important due to the differences in the optimiser changes between sql versions.

Also have you applied any SQL Service packs to 2005?

You might want to cast your eye over Lessons learned from upgrading from SQL 2000 to SQL Server 2005 which walks you through things to do and check.

share|improve this answer
add comment

How does the disk i/o benchmark of the SQL 2005 system compare to the system running SQL 2000, using SQLIO?


That will clearly determine if this is actually related to SQL or the hardware/storage/os, independent of SQL itself.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

