Timeline for Empty SQL Server 2000 LDF File
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 10, 2013 at 16:12 | comment | added | Poldi | Yes, it is more like a last consideration. And backing up regularly right is always better, as you said. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:54 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand | But preventing your log file from growing isn't the only consideration when choosing a recovery model. You can keep a log file from growing over time in FULL too, you just have to take log backups frequently enough (kind of the point of FULL in the first place). Again, changing the recovery model is not a "fix" for this specific problem. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:50 | comment | added | Poldi | Switching to simple doesn't fix anything and large transactions will also grow the log file, but at least it doesn't keep growing over time. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:44 | comment | added | Poldi | Yes, you're right. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:10 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand | That's not necessarily true at all either. Large transactions can still inflate the log beyond expectations, even in simple. Anyway it sounds like you are suggesting switching to simple recovery is a fix for the current file size, hence my comment. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:08 | comment | added | Poldi | I mean if you start with a simple recovery model in the test environment you don't have to shrink at all. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 14:32 | review | First posts | |||
| Dec 10, 2013 at 15:33 | |||||
| Dec 10, 2013 at 14:15 | comment | added | Aaron Bertrand | Truncated <> shrunk. Switching recovery models will never make the file smaller. | |
| Dec 10, 2013 at 14:15 | history | answered | Poldi | CC BY-SA 3.0 |