January 22, 2009 at 12:43 pm
In my organization, we dropped several tables that have lots of rows and saved about 5 GB of space by looking at the backup size. However, the database size itself didnot change.
Currently there is no scheduled shrinking of the database (MSSQL 2000) because one of the DBA said shrinking (and judging by other articles) is not good for performance reasons.
The database is currently 25 GB of used space with 20 GB of Free space for the data part.
The log of the database is currently 391 MB of used space with 30 GB of Free space (probably after scheduled reindexing, this unused portion will be much smaller then drops back to low number after backup of log).
The data and log seems to be allocated with lots of free space.
If I did shrink database with 50% free space would that solve the problem of the data grows and needs to autogrow space?
January 22, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Hollyz (1/22/2009)
In my organization, we dropped several tables that have lots of rows and saved about 5 GB of space by looking at the backup size. However, the database size itself didnot change.
It won't.
Currently there is no scheduled shrinking of the database
That's good.
The data and log seems to be allocated with lots of free space.
Does the log ever fill most of that 30GB?
Do you expect the data to grow to fill the empty space?
If not, shrink the log file so that it's maybe 20% free space when the log is at it's fullest, and shrink down a bit, then reindex all tables.
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
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply