February 22, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Quick question for ya that I hope someone has an answer for..
In attempts to keep the log file from growing while performing a bulk copy type of operation would placing the recovery model too 'simple' be the same as setting it to bulkcopy..
"Keep Your Stick On the Ice" ..Red Green
February 22, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I don't think so. I believe bulkcopy still logs changes at the extent level (or page level...I can't remember) instead of every single record as for FULL. I believe this is still more logging than simple though.
February 22, 2005 at 1:04 pm
.........but, does simple log bulk copy operations?
"Keep Your Stick On the Ice" ..Red Green
February 22, 2005 at 1:09 pm
Recovery model | Benefits | Work loss exposure | Recover to point in time? |
Simple | Permits high-performance bulk copy operations. Reclaims log space to keep space requirements small. | Changes since the most recent database or differential backup must be redone. | Can recover to the end of any backup. Then changes must be redone. |
Bulk-Logged | Permits high-performance bulk copy operations. Minimal log space is used by bulk operations. | If the log is damaged, or bulk operations occurred since the most recent log backup, changes since that last backup must be redone. Otherwise, no work is lost. | Can recover to the end of any backup. Then changes must be redone. |
February 23, 2005 at 2:21 am
See if this helps:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/incbulkload.mspx
Personally, and without knowing the background of the question I would be more concerned with what happens in the case of disaster than with some space occupied by the log file.
--
Frank Kalis
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply