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
>>
>>
>

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
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
>
>
|||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...
>

Minimally Logged Operations in SQL Server 2005

underprocessableYes, 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...
>