Hi,
If I understand it correctly, you only need an LDF file to restore to a point in time after the last full backup? If this is so, then Could the LDF file not be reduced in size on perfoming a full backup?
Most of the time it's not an issue as there is enough space on the HDD, but is it possible to reduce the ldf file size periodically (manually would be fine). Is changing the recovery mode from FULL to SIMPLE and then back to FULL an option?
If so, is anyone able to tell me how, exactly, I can do this? ... I've sifted through the documentaion to no avail ... :eek:
Many thanks
Rob
Hi,I have the following three tables below containing Resources,Categories and a link table so each Resource can belong to one or moreCategories. I would like to create a view (ResourceID, ResourceName,CategoryID, CategoryName) that includes one row for each Resource withjust one of the Categories that it belongs to.Resource table- ResourceID- ResourceName- etc..Category table- CategoryID- CategoryName- etc..ResourceCategory table- ResourceID- CategoryIDCan anyone help? Thanks.
i used "dbcc shrink file" to reduce the log file of a database.the query analyzer says "successfully executed" but the log file doesn't seem to reduce..am i missing something?
The transaction log of the databse i am using has grown up to 7GB...(previously the setting was unrestricted file growth...now changed to restrict file growth to 7 GB approx.) now this 7GB space is not needed....i would like to reduce the size to around 2 GB...how can i achieve this?i observer that on the properties i can only increase the size and not decrease it...also i am using transactional replication..this server is the publisher to four subscribers..
what i want to do, is to 1.- insert a row in User, 2.- insert a row in Car 3.- using SCOPE_IDENTITY, to insert a new row in user_car that relates the ids of the last added car with the last added user.
But i need that to be done in one single transaction. Once that is done, i have another question
how can i do the same but where i can add a variable number of different cars? in other words, i add 1 user and then add 5 cars, then create 5 rows in the user_car where i have the id of the last added user with the incremental id of the last 5 added cars
how can this be done in one single transaction, i cant make it in 3 transactions cuz it would cause me a lot of trouble. Any help?
my transaction should be something like this
Code:
insert into user(username) values('user1'); insert into car(carName) values('car1'); insert into user_car(???,???)
but im not sure how to do this in one single transaction
hi i have a database that becomes to big after a few days. is there a chance to say if the table reaches a number of lines or a special memorysize, delete (or better archive) the oldest entries?
I have started to look at the way our production DB has been defined and set up, with the view to improving performance.
The DB is now 11gb, and the original size was set up as 3000mb, the rest has been take in 10% additional extents.
Now, back in my DB2 DBA days, this was a bad thing to have any data spread across extents as they may not be contiguous. I am assuming that is the same with SQL Server. Can someone confirm/deny this?
If this is the case, how can I get the DB back into one primary partition?
If I have a transaction log in a database of size 1GB ( space allocated is during creation of database) currently only 300 mb of its space is used i.e. nearly 700 mb is free. If I want to reduce physical file size of transaction log by 200 mb and release it for operating system then How can I do it???
I have inherited a number of databases which were substantially over sized when they were set up. I'd like to reduce both the log and database files to be smaller than their original sizes, what's the easiest way to do this? If anyone has any experience of doing this please reply.
i am new to sql server. i recently found the transaction log size of my database has reached 109 MB. how can i reduce it. a transaction log backup was sceduled daily at 12.00 noon nad full backup monthly.
I have a production database of a size of 70 GB. Half of the data was archived and deleted from the current database. What is the best way to reduce the size of the database, as we cannot shrink an entire database to be smaller than its original size? Thanks a lot!
I created few jobs that would archive the production DB and delete the archived data... but it looks like the DB size is not reducing!!! Some times it looks like the size has increased!!
I think this is because of the log file size has increaded by the DELETE operations....But what can I do for this???
Code: <root> <timesheet empid="1" entryyear="2012" entryPeriod="1" adminnotes="These are the admin notes" empnotes="These are the user notes"> <project projnum="TestProject" projname="The really big project for our best customer"> <activity actcode="000103020200302302322" actname="Demolish the 55th story of the main tower">
[Code] ....
Notice how there is a tremendous amount of redundancy in the XML. I was hoping to come up with an XML result of the following, which transmits the same data, without the redundancies.
Code: <root> <timesheet empid="1" entryyear="2012" entryPeriod="1" adminnotes="These are the admin notes" empnotes="These are the user notes"> <project projnum="TestProject" projname="The really big project for our best customer"> <activity actcode="000103020200302302322" actname="Demolish the 55th story of the main tower"> <expenditure expcode="1" expname="Regular Hours">
I'm trying to insert all the rows from a table to a new table. (insert A select * from AA) The reads on Profiler shows ar really high value (10253548).
First I created a unique clustered index and the reads shows (3258445), then I created a non clustered index expecting to have lower reads. Instead the reads shows (10253548).
I read creating indexes helps reduce reads. But it's not happening. Any ideas what is going on?
I am working on a personal project and am drawing a complete blank(too much celebrating last night?) on the SQL term that is used toeliminate multiples of like data when it is returned from thedatabase.ie, instead of ....redblueredgreenit would return ...redbluegreenSorry for the trouble and thanks.
We currently have an e-commerce app written in .NET with SQL Server backend and built-in CMS that works just fine. We are now implementing a service to remove the need for the CMS by automating the synchronisation of the e-commerce database with a back-office database (non SQL Server). The problem we have run into is that during some of the larger updates to the website (i.e. new product information), the e-commerce system is experiencing timeouts. The synchronisation service uses transactions while performing updates and so I am assuming that the timeouts are being caused by the transactions locking tables and data.
What steps can I take to try to reduce these locks? The transactions are as short as possible so I do not think we can reduce the amount of processing each transaction deals with. I was looking at different isolation modes, Snapshot in particular, to reduce the locks, but would like some advice from someone who may have dealt with this type of situation before I start messing around here. (The synchronisation service uses the default ReadCommitted level, BTW)
Any advice you have to offer will be much appreciated.
I have a database who is in full recovery mode. I have four maintenence plans setup: database backup, log backup, optimization and integrity checkup. The last two plans run weekly and the first two run daily. I found that the log size often increase to a dramatically size in a very short period, almost same size as the database file (4G). Further I found that the size seems increase a lot after the last two plan runs.
My question is that the optimization operation(reconstruct index page) will write any reocord to log file? Is this possible a reason?
Now the log file occupy too much disk space (90% of space can be free). What I should do? Shrink database weekly?
Can anyone help me reduce a transaction log. It is currently at 2.5GB because it was set to autogrow with no backup !?
I need to drastically reduce it and have backed it up and tried dbcc shrinkfile...but...it now says space used is 120MB but current size is still 2.5GB.
Hello. I am wondering how to effectively reduce the size of my database. After viewing the individual table sizes, I have come to realize that nearly 99% of the database's size is due to images. I am told that too much binary data is not good. How can I go about reducing the size of my database (possibly the images themselves)? I'd appreciate any help.
At this time I am only playing with the applications that generate the data and send it to the database. Without doing too much, and with deleting most data tables that were created, my transaction log file has grown over a gigabyte. I tried using the SQL server management studio (express) to shrink the database (tried shrinking files, too) but that did not make the file smaller. Right now there is hardly any data in the database (6 tables, a dozen columns and rows each) so it must be old transactions that are kept in the log. How do I get rid of the old data and make the file size smaller? Thanks. Kamen
Currently we take full database backups nightly for our SQL Server 2000 data warehouse systems. The backups take a very long time over 20 hours and we would like to find a good way to reduce these backup times. How can I change our backup plan to reduce the long backup run times. Data size is 1 TB for our data warehouse database server.
I'm running a transformation script that's taking decimal(18,10) data and trying to shoehorn it into a numeric(9,6). generally this works, as most of the data in the original table is not using anywhere near the precision it's capable of, but once in a while I run into one that does use it.
Is there any way to automagically reduce the precision so that i can cram the data into the destination table?
I've got a very filesize restricted database. I noticed that when I insert 1000 rows my filesize jumps to 80k, but when I delete all but 50 of those rows...the filesize actually increases to 84k. How do I make sure the filesize of my database shrinks when I delete rows?
We have a reporting system where the default rendering format is HTML. HOwever, in some cases user may export the data into Excel aftergenerating the report in HTML. Howveer, this export is taking too much time. eg 5500 row report in HTML takes around 8 minutes to export into excel. Is there a workaround for this? Please note that default rendering has to be in HTML only.
Also another feature noticed is that in RS 2005, the report server execution log seems to be logging seperate entries for export feature as well. This was not happening in RS2000. Is this a new feature in RS2005 or is the underlying SP for the new report being called again when the export to excel happens?
What is the best procedure/sequence to reduce some tables containing large number of rows of a SQL 2000 server? The idea is first to check which tables grow extremely fast (all statistics, user or log tables), reduce the table according to the number of months the user wishes to keep in the table. As a second step backup remaining rows of table as txt files on harddisk (using DTS), UPDATE STATISTICS and re-indexing reduced table. Run DTS Package every month once (delete oldest month and backup newest month) and do the same as above to keep size of tables adequate. What is a fast way to reduce number of rows of a large table - the following example produces an error (timeout expired) of my ADO connection when executing: SET @str = 'DELETE FROM ' + @ProcessTable + ' WHERE ' + @SelectedColumn + ' < DATEADD (m,' +' -' + @KeepMonthsInDatabase + ', + GETDATE())' EXEC (@str) Adding ConnectionTimout = 0 did not help unfortunately.
What is the best way to re-index the table just maintained?
Hi, My application needs to retrieve data from a table which has more than 15 lakh records. The records keep increasing in thousands every 15 days. Is there anyway i can reduce the time to retrieve? basically i have a select statement with a few conditions and a clause for the id's of these records.
With the data example below I am trying to consolidate the duplicate rows by flattening the dealer and billcode, or putting those values in each of the columns instead of creating separate rows...
74 MARTHA PATNE RIPLEY 1 23,327,76 ROTTINGDAM AAC SPRINGFIELD 3052 USA MPATRIP@AMERICANALARM.COM,MPATRIP@COMCAST.NET,PRIPLEY@ONECOMMUNICATIONS.COM
Hello,A while back I dropped a text column from a SQL Server 7 databaseroughly 3GB in size. I expected the size of the database to decreaseby around 1GB, but no change occurred. After searching usenet, Idiscovered that SQL Server 7 has no way of reclaiming that space, butthat there is some command that can be run in SQL Server 2000 thatwill reclaim it.I have since migrated this database to SQL Server 2000, and am nowtrying to figure out what that command is, but cannot locate anyusenet posts about it... also tried searching books online, but can'tfind anything that way either.Does anyone know what I should run?Thanks,Tom
I am working on an app that getting quite a few deadlocks due to delete statements. I have turned on the sql trace flags and pulled the offending delete statements out of the ERRORLOG and trying to mesh those up with the indexes defined on the table, etc. looking to see if there is anything that can be done strictly from the db side (no app code change) to reduce/eliminate these deadlocks. I have ran some tests/played around with RCSI and even disabling lock escalation but neither have improved my results.
What I have done is to search the errorlog file for DELETE FROM Tablename, output those matching lines, then sort of normalize the literal values to # or XYZ, open in Notepad++, removed trailing whitespace + dups and sort to come up with these results for the unique list of offending T-SQL statements (a LOT easier to read in text editor so sending screen cap.
