You have a Microsoft Azure virtual machine named SQL1 that has Microsoft SQL Server 2016 installed. SQL1 has a critical database that contains online transaction data. The database is 700 GB. You…

While differential backups can reduce backup size and potentially restore time compared to full backups alone, they still require restoring the full backup first, and their effectiveness in reducing restore time for a very large database might be less pronounced than a more granular, partitioned approach.

Partitioning large tables in the database breaks them into smaller, more manageable units, which can be distributed across filegroups. When combined with an 'incremental' backup strategy (which could involve differential backups or targeted backups of changed partitions), this allows for significantly reduced data transfer during restores by only processing necessary partitions or changes, thereby decreasing the overall time required to bring the database online or fully restore it.

Creating multiple filegroups and using filegroup backups enables partial and piecemeal restores, which can bring critical parts of a database online faster. However, without partitioning, managing very large tables within filegroups for optimal backup and restore performance might be less efficient compared to a solution that also includes table partitioning.

Transaction log backups are essential for point-in-time recovery and minimizing data loss, but they are used after a full or differential backup has been restored and do not, by themselves, reduce the initial time required to restore the base database.