June 12, 2009 at 9:44 pm
dxmer (6/12/2009)
I won't use the forum any more, because I was told I was using the forum incorrectly when the reply/answer to my post wasn't even relevant.I was trying to find out more details about why the log would shrink when it had been initialized to a specified size. I understand the log gets truncated on a shrink, but I was under the impression that if you initialized the log to a certain size only the logical space would shrink and the physical size would only revert back to the original initialized size.
This was very clear in my post and was very related to the thread. Having someone post to check the maintenance plans for a shrink operation didn't address the question at all, and is basically the reason I hesitate to use these in the first place.
I guess just I'll continue looking for a forum where people actually read the posts and provide insightful answers. Hence, I'll just stick to browsing. I deleted the post, so the thread wouldn't be tarnished with my incorrect usage.
Thanks for listening to me vent a little. Have fun.
I think you took the response a bit out of context. Instead of getting upset by a reply or response ask for clarification. In this particular medium it is easy to get the wrong impression at times. You will find, I think, that this is the best SQL Server forum on the net. It is, in fact, more like a community if you take the time to get to know some of us that "reside" here on a regular basis.
June 13, 2009 at 4:16 am
dxmer (6/12/2009)
I understand the log gets truncated on a shrink, but I was under the impression that if you initialized the log to a certain size only the logical space would shrink and the physical size would only revert back to the original initialized size.
Shrink does not truncate the log. Truncate does not shrink the log.
Maybe I misunderstood your question:
Is there a way to set the transaction log so it will never physically shrink below a certain amount using sql 2000?
If the size of the file is reducing, there's a shrink operation somewhere, regardless of what the initial size is. If you don't want the log to shrink below a certain size either remove the shrink operation entirely or change the size it shrinks to.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
June 13, 2009 at 11:11 am
June 13, 2009 at 11:19 am
dxmer (6/13/2009)
Wow, a further explanation that doesn't address the question.
Wow... another smart a$$ed and incorrect comment. I was wrong before... you and your cruddy attitude should leave.
--Jeff Moden
Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.
June 13, 2009 at 11:21 am
dxmer (6/13/2009)
Wow, a further explanation that doesn't address the question.
Ok, since I apparently can't read and have limited ability to comprehend English, will you repeat, for the record, what your question is? I'm not talking about the initial question in this thread, which was asked and answered over two years ago.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
June 13, 2009 at 11:26 am
This is not just any other forum. I've learnt SQL administration here and got a new job. Thanks to Gail, Jeff and many of you who constantly give best advices and suggestions.
Poor soul - will miss vast ocean of knowledge here.
June 13, 2009 at 12:15 pm
dxmer (6/13/2009)
Wow, a further explanation that doesn't address the question.
Interesting, is this how you would interact with a person you are asking for assistance from in person? Very quick way to get someone to get up and walk out of the room.
Which would you prefer in a similar situation:
Answer 1: Wow, that really answers my question doesn't it.
Answer 2: Okay, I still don't quite understand. Perhaps if I explain my problem like this ...
Personally, Answer 2 is the way most professionals would like to see things handled. Well, guess what, this is a professional site, and most of us on here are professionals. You will also find quite a few SQL Server MVP's here that have a wealth of knowledge that they are more than willing to share with those of us who want to learn from them
Drop the snide comments, and be professional. You will learn something here if you take the time and put some effort into the process.
If all you want are "answers" go to StackOverflow where discussions are frowned upon. It just happens that more learning actually happens FROM the discussions, not from the answers themselves.
June 13, 2009 at 2:06 pm
forumloser (6/13/2009)
Okay, another act of professionalism, not. You may have editted your post deleting the comment you made, unfortunately it has been quoted in three separate posts. A true professional would have simply admitted their mistake and moved on instead of trying to cover it up. Mistakes happen, it is what you learn from them that really matters.
Trust me, I have made some real doozies, and I learned well from them.
June 13, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Lynn Pettis (6/13/2009)
forumloser (6/13/2009)
Okay, another act of professionalism, not. You may have editted your post deleting the comment you made, unfortunately it has been quoted in three separate posts. A true professional would have simply admitted their mistake and moved on instead of trying to cover it up. Mistakes happen, it is what you learn from them that really matters.
Trust me, I have made some real doozies, and I learned well from them.
Thanks Lynn, I was able to answer my own question. Maybe someone could help with my next question:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic734434-146-1.aspx
Viewing 9 posts - 16 through 23 (of 23 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply