SQL Server partition table performance

I am using SQL Server 2008 Enterprise. I have yea开发者_如何转开发rly customer data from 2000 to 2010, and from 2000 to 2009, I only need to read, and in the year of 2010, I need both read and write.

So, this requirement and usage scenario makes me think of using SQL Server partition table. But I am not sure whether partition table performance is better than just using one table (of the same schema) for each year? I am wondering whether using light weighted solution (i.e. home made one table for each year) is of better performance compared to using partition table.

BTW: in each year, there is about 100k rows. I only have one hard disk drive. I am also wondering the differences between partition table and partition view.

thanks in advance, George

---

NO NO NO, very seldomly is a home made brew better than a tested/trusted solution.

Dont reinvent the wheel, use table partitions if you must.

Can you just imagine the simple home made solution to INSERTS/UPDATES/SELECT and you have to remember to create a new table on the 31 Dec each year, and what if you get hit by a bus, or over sleep, or just plain forget?

Dont do, just D.O.N.T. do it.

---

You have a 100k rows per year? Simply isn't worth it sorry. And I would not roll your own solution either.

Especially with one disk drive which is a far bigger worry...