Minimally Logged Operations in SQL Server 2005

Hello!
I am trying to confirm what BOL says (
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191244.aspx):
'...Bulk-logging is more efficient than full logging, and it reduces the
possibility of a large-scale bulk operation filling the available
transaction log space during a bulk transaction. However, if the database is
damaged or lost when bulk logging is in effect, you cannot recover the
database to the point of failure.
Note:
Unless a backup is running, minimal logging is used under the simple
recovery model.
...'
Does this mean that BULK-LOGGED recovery mode is more efficient in
terms of logging when database backup is running?
Thanks,
Igor
begin 666 note.gif
M1TE&.#EA"@.`*`+,)`/\$`/]=6L;#QM;3UO_/`(2&A(R.C ```/__SO___P``
M`````````````````````"'Y! $```D`+ `````*``H```0HT,@.Y1 `&Z7T(
AWEIW)!E'C.16G$.2(L-1((5;%D-H@._H+HH>@.,.B*```[
`
endYes, it is especially useful if you want high performance during bcp or bulk
insert operations.
--
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:elYju2KyHHA.3768@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Hello!
> I am trying to confirm what BOL says (
> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191244.aspx):
> '...Bulk-logging is more efficient than full logging, and it reduces the
> possibility of a large-scale bulk operation filling the available
> transaction log space during a bulk transaction. However, if the database
> is damaged or lost when bulk logging is in effect, you cannot recover the
> database to the point of failure.
> Note:
> Unless a backup is running, minimal logging is used under the simple
> recovery model.
> ...'
> Does this mean that BULK-LOGGED recovery mode is more efficient in
> terms of logging when database backup is running?
> Thanks,
> Igor
>
>|||Hilary,
Sorry for not making my question clear.
I was trying to compare performance/IO footprint of SIMPLE vs.
BULK-LOGGED during backup activities. Our database is in SIMPLE mode (I do
understand the implications of that) and we are contemplating whether we
should switch to BULK-LOGGED to imrpove performance during BACKUP operations
(we are working with multi-terabyte databases). Would you have any comments
on that?
On a similar note, we are doing a lot of bcp into the database. My
assumption was that both BULK-LOGGED and SIMPLE modes would behave in
similar way when it comes to logging during bcp operation. Is this
assumption correct?
Thanks,
Igor
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uhdDaESyHHA.1184@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Yes, it is especially useful if you want high performance during bcp or
> bulk insert operations.
> --
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "imarchenko" <igormarchenko@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:elYju2KyHHA.3768@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Hello!
>> I am trying to confirm what BOL says (
>> http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms191244.aspx):
>> '...Bulk-logging is more efficient than full logging, and it reduces the
>> possibility of a large-scale bulk operation filling the available
>> transaction log space during a bulk transaction. However, if the database
>> is damaged or lost when bulk logging is in effect, you cannot recover the
>> database to the point of failure.
>> Note:
>> Unless a backup is running, minimal logging is used under the simple
>> recovery model.
>> ...'
>> Does this mean that BULK-LOGGED recovery mode is more efficient in
>> terms of logging when database backup is running?
>> Thanks,
>> Igor
>>
>>
>