SQLServerCentral / Article Discussions / Article Discussions by Author / Discuss content posted by Mohammed Moinudheen / Bulk Logged recovery model / Latest Posts

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Dird — Fri, 10 May 2013 07:33:22 GMT

As mentioned, fix this question T_T change to "could you see a log file [b]backup [/b]bigger than usual?" -- I knew the backup would be bigger; from the wording I thought it was a trick QDird

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Divine Flame — Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:19:45 GMT

Although I got the point :cool: because I assumed that you are talking about huge log [b]backup[/b] file size (because that is something to note when you use bulk logged recovery model) however the question has been poorly worded.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

SQLPhil — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 03:31:38 GMT

I misread the question initially and made the assumption the question was referring to the log backup as opposed to the file. It was only after I clicked Submit that I saw the reference to log file so was expecting to get an incorrect answer.I've never been so pleased to have misread a question and made an assumption! :-D

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Britt Cluff — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 20:18:34 GMT

Good question. Thanks for submitting.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

L' Eomot Inversé — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:00:25 GMT

[quote][b]Ernie Schlangen (4/17/2012)[/b][hr]I understand (and agree with) your point about the unlikeliness of the log file increasing in size. However, if it is [b]possible[/b] for the log file size to increase, then the answer is "yes" to the question [i]as stated[/i] (in my opinion, of course).[/quote]Yes, on a literal interpretation of the words the answer is "yes"; the trouble with that interpretation is we would be reading the question as "is it false that selecting the bulk recovery model guarantee that it is impossible for the log file to grow" and given the words chosen to pose the question is looked very unlikely that that was the author's intention (and indeed he has said it was not his intention - he meant to ask about the backup file, not the log file).[quote]And, for the record, I consider you to be "distinguished". [/quote]Oh dear, something else we disagree on.[quote]I've certainly learned some things just from following up on references that you've made.[/quote]thanks for telling me that - I'm glad to know that someone is following up the links/references I provide.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Ernie Schlangen — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 13:19:23 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (4/17/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]Ernie Schlangen (4/17/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.[/quote]This is pretty much the way I looked at this question. The key word to me was [b]could[/b] as well, which pretty much forces the answer to be yes because it is such an open-ended question. I'm thinking along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's first law:[quote]When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.[/quote][/quote]The trouble is that to many people (including me) it looks as if the question means "is it at all likely that the decision to switch to bulk mode increases the size of" whatever it refers to. If it refers to the log file (which is what it says) the answer is clearly NO. If it refers to the backup file (which is what the question author says he intended) the answer is clearly YES. And yes, regardless of Clark's law I will state that it is extremely unlikely that a switch to bulk logging will cause an increase in the log file size, and that it's equally unlikely that it won't cause an increase in the log backup size. If you believe Clarke's law you will probably want to claim that when I (an elderly scientist - on whether distinguished or not I make no comment:-D) say that it is impossible that switching to bulk logged mode then doing a bulk operation then switching back to full mode and then doing a backup will lead to a smaller backup file that doing all the same except that the recovery mode switches are omitted I am likely to be talking from the wrong orifice, and that probable mistake on your part just goes to show that Clarke's law is (exactly as he intended) a broad generalisation that can't be used to determine specific outcomes although it can be used to indcate that unvalidated theories (as opposed to empirical knowledge) are often a waste of space.Edit: eliminate double negatives (Cha toigh leam a' bheurla shasunnach - I hate the English gibberish).[/quote]I understand (and agree with) your point about the unlikeliness of the log file increasing in size. However, if it is [b]possible[/b] for the log file size to increase, then the answer is "yes" to the question [i]as stated[/i] (in my opinion, of course). And, for the record, I consider you to be "distinguished". I've certainly learned some things just from following up on references that you've made.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

L' Eomot Inversé — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:26:46 GMT

[quote][b]Ernie Schlangen (4/17/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.[/quote]This is pretty much the way I looked at this question. The key word to me was [b]could[/b] as well, which pretty much forces the answer to be yes because it is such an open-ended question. I'm thinking along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's first law:[quote]When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.[/quote][/quote]The trouble is that to many people (including me) it looks as if the question means "is it at all likely that the decision to switch to bulk mode increases the size of" whatever it refers to. If it refers to the log file (which is what it says) the answer is clearly NO. If it refers to the backup file (which is what the question author says he intended) the answer is clearly YES. And yes, regardless of Clark's law I will state that it is extremely unlikely that a switch to bulk logging will cause an increase in the log file size, and that it's equally unlikely that it won't cause an increase in the log backup size. If you believe Clarke's law you will probably want to claim that when I (an elderly scientist - on whether distinguished or not I make no comment:-D) say that it is impossible that switching to bulk logged mode then doing a bulk operation then switching back to full mode and then doing a backup will lead to a smaller backup file that doing all the same except that the recovery mode switches are omitted I am likely to be talking from the wrong orifice, and that probable mistake on your part just goes to show that Clarke's law is (exactly as he intended) a broad generalisation that can't be used to determine specific outcomes although it can be used to indcate that unvalidated theories (as opposed to empirical knowledge) are often a waste of space.Edit: eliminate double negatives (Cha toigh leam a' bheurla shasunnach - I hate the English gibberish).

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Ernie Schlangen — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:33:22 GMT

[quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.[/quote]This is pretty much the way I looked at this question. The key word to me was [b]could[/b] as well, which pretty much forces the answer to be yes because it is such an open-ended question. I'm thinking along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's first law:[quote]When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.[/quote]

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

call.copse — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:32:20 GMT

[quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b] The question did not ask if the log file would be bigger that a log file generated from a full recovery model database with the same set of transactions. The question asked if the log file could be bigger than [b]usual[/b]. In this context, the logical interpretation of "usual" would be the average log file size preceding the model change. A single unusual non-bulk-logged transaction could account for that.[/quote]True enough - if you are getting away from the intent to cover the backup issue I think the wording is loose enough to accept that interpretation - although if you accept that interpretation then you have to say full recovery model vs bulk is a complete red herring and has nothing to do with the actual question or answer. The question is then simply 'could your log be bigger than usual?' which is pretty pointless, which is why I took the interpretation 'would the log file be bigger than a log file generated from a full recovery model database with the same set of transactions'.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Koen Verbeeck — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 00:57:45 GMT

Got it wrong, because I didn't know log file and log backup apparently are the same thing.Anyhow, it made me think, so a part of the question was succesfull.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

dsfjoijoiioj — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:38:15 GMT

n2012 comes, in order to thank everyone, characteristic, novel style, varieties, low price and good quality, and the low sale price. Thank everyone==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) =====$33 True Religion jeans, Ed Hardy jeans,LV,Coogi jeans,Affliction jeans $30 Air Jordan shoes,Shox shoes,Gucci,LV shoes50%Discount winter fashion :Sandle,t-shirt,caps,jerseys,handbag and brand watches!!!$15 Ed Hardy ,LV ,Gucci Bikini$15 Polo, Ed Hardy, Gucci, LV, Lacoste T-shirts$25 Coach,Gucci,LV,Prada,Juicy,Chanel handbag,$10 Gucci,Ed Hardy sunglasses$9 New Era caps.give you the unexpected harvest==== ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) ========= ( http://www.fullmalls.com ) =====

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

dsfjoijoiioj — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:38:11 GMT

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

dsfjoijoiioj — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:38:09 GMT

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Toreador — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:56:52 GMT

I guessed right, on the basis that if the answer was No then it wouldn't be a very interesting question :-)It then prompted me to read up a bit on bulk logging, so from my perspective was a good question.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

sknox — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:35:36 GMT

[quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would go further than the other posters on this thread - sorry, this question and the answer given are just plain WRONG.See this MSDN blog entry which clearly explains log sizes in different modes:[url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx[/url]The LOG FILE BACKUP is certainly likely to be larger.The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.I will accept that the question could have been mangled unintentionally in the editorial prcess or something - but, the fact remains, the correct answer to the question as written is NO.[/quote]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.[/quote]I disagree. There are no circumstances where immediately post log backup, a full recovery model database log file will be less big than a bulk logged model database log file after the same set of transactions. I am pretty sure there are few conceivable circumstances where it might even be the same size. The blog link I sent above explains this pretty well.[/quote]The question did not ask if the log file would be bigger that a log file generated from a full recovery model database with the same set of transactions. The question asked if the log file could be bigger than [b]usual[/b]. In this context, the logical interpretation of "usual" would be the average log file size preceding the model change. A single unusual non-bulk-logged transaction could account for that.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

lbrigham — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:23:10 GMT

I got it wrong for legitimate reasons as I assumed the question was referring to log backups and not log files, and thought because bulk recovery model minimally logs bulk operations that both the log file and log backup file would be smaller so, from that angle, thanks for the question as I learned something new. However, in rereading the question I can certainly understand why some people would've received a different interpretation thus thought the question was asking about the log file and not the log backup file, but it's not as though this was the first poorly worded question we've had... :) that being said, I WANT MY POINT BACK, HULK SMASH

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

GP Van Eron — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 09:12:42 GMT

I was also thrown off my the 'log file' at the end of the question. It should have been 'could you see a log backup file larger than usual' By Log File I thought the question meant 'transaction log file' , which immediately after a backup either in Full or Bulk-logged should be the same.Thanks

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

OzYbOi d(-_-)b — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:55:19 GMT

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

KarenM — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:54:00 GMT

[quote][b]Thomas Abraham (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]Thank you for the question. I thought the question was straightforward, but then it's Monday.[/quote]I figured what was being asked, no confusion here either...

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

mohammed moinudheen — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:53:24 GMT

[quote]@MohammedI'll echo Tom - I was pretty annoyed to spend time trying to get the question right according to the exact wording and find I still had it wrong - but I have not yet submitted any questions, so good on you. It must not be easy to put yourself before an audience who are by nature likely to be EXTREMELY pedantic.[/quote]No problem, thank you for the feedback.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

call.copse — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:37:03 GMT

[quote][b]sknox (4/16/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would go further than the other posters on this thread - sorry, this question and the answer given are just plain WRONG.See this MSDN blog entry which clearly explains log sizes in different modes:[url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx[/url]The LOG FILE BACKUP is certainly likely to be larger.The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.I will accept that the question could have been mangled unintentionally in the editorial prcess or something - but, the fact remains, the correct answer to the question as written is NO.[/quote]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.[/quote]I disagree. There are no circumstances where immediately post log backup, a full recovery model database log file will be less big than a bulk logged model database log file after the same set of transactions. I am pretty sure there are few conceivable circumstances where it might even be the same size. The blog link I sent above explains this pretty well.@MohammedI'll echo Tom - I was pretty annoyed to spend time trying to get the question right according to the exact wording and find I still had it wrong - but I have not yet submitted any questions, so good on you. It must not be easy to put yourself before an audience who are by nature likely to be EXTREMELY pedantic.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

mtassin — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:49:51 GMT

[quote][b]The CosmicTrickster (4/15/2012)[/b][hr]"Now, after you take a log backup, could you see a log file bigger than usual?"No points for me. I perceive there being a difference between a "backup file" and a "log file". If someone says "log file" to me, I take it to mean the transaction log file, not the backup.[/quote]I saw could... Could you see a larger backup file.... the correct answer... well it depends... did those bulk activities you forsaw actually occur? Was there a larger amount of normal database traffic that might have caused the log file to grow? Did somebody decide to rebuild all the indexes in the database?I mean really... Could that file, or the backup, or whatever have grown? Sure....

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

sknox — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 07:44:16 GMT

[quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]I would go further than the other posters on this thread - sorry, this question and the answer given are just plain WRONG.See this MSDN blog entry which clearly explains log sizes in different modes:[url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx[/url]The LOG FILE BACKUP is certainly likely to be larger.The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.I will accept that the question could have been mangled unintentionally in the editorial prcess or something - but, the fact remains, the correct answer to the question as written is NO.[/quote]I would say that since the question read "...[b]could[/b] you see a log file bigger than usual?" the only logical answer is yes. While the bulk-logged recovery model is a feature designed to reduce log file growth, it does not [b]constrain[/b] log file growth. Therefore you certainly could see a larger log file in some circumstances.However, I would also say that that does not seem to be the intent of the question. The question was poorly worded, but the explanation is correct. So, poor wording of the question has given us a "If False then True" situation -- which, if my memory of basic logic serves me properly, is still True. So much for logic.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

mohammed moinudheen — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:18:15 GMT

[quote][b]L' Eomot Inversé (4/16/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]mohammed moinudheen (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]Sorry for the confusion. The question and answer was meant to test your knowledge on the log file backup size only and not the log file. Somehow the wording was not perfect thereby leading to wrong interpretation. Hope this clarifies.[/quote].Don't worry. Writing questions is very difficult - everyone answering expects perfection, but no-one writing questions is perfect (certainly the ones I've written have been imperfect!). Just keep producing questions, they are very welcome even when we moan about them. We are all grateful to people like you who take the trouble to write questions - after all, most people can't be bothered to try writing them.[/quote]Thank you Sir.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

L' Eomot Inversé — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 06:01:22 GMT

[quote][b]mohammed moinudheen (4/16/2012)[/b][hr]Sorry for the confusion. The question and answer was meant to test your knowledge on the log file backup size only and not the log file. Somehow the wording was not perfect thereby leading to wrong interpretation. Hope this clarifies.[/quote].Don't worry. Writing questions is very difficult - everyone answering expects perfection, but no-one writing questions is perfect (certainly the ones I've written have been imperfect!). Just keep producing questions, they are very welcome even when we moan about them. We are all grateful to people like you who take the trouble to write questions - after all, most people can't be bothered to try writing them.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

mohammed moinudheen — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:47:28 GMT

Sorry for the confusion. The question and answer was meant to test your knowledge on the log file backup size only and not the log file. Somehow the wording was not perfect thereby leading to wrong interpretation. Hope this clarifies.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Thomas Abraham — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:39:08 GMT

Thank you for the question. I thought the question was straightforward, but then it's Monday.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

L' Eomot Inversé — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:25:50 GMT

[quote][b]Rich Weissler (4/16/2012)[/b][hr][quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b]The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.[/quote]Hmm. Perhaps I'm missing something. Even if we are talking about the Log File... not the log backup... unless there was a subsequent Shrink Operation, it certainly will NOT be smaller. There is a fair chance it'll be the same size... and the question asks COULD it be bigger? It could be the same size, or bigger... but nothing says it HAS to be the same size (unless someone turned off autogrowth.)For me, I interpreted the question to be able to backup files of the transaction log... so I didn't even start thinking in these terms until I'd seen what you folks had written. ;-)[/quote]Interesting interpretation: "can the size of the log file at some time be smaller that its size at some earlier time" your interpretation would make sense, but with the wording of the question I would say that that interpretation probably requires treating it as a trick question. I suppose though that we should maybe remember that trick questions do turn up now and again and that some people use over-literal English which gives the impression of a trick question when no trick was intended.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

L' Eomot Inversé — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:16:10 GMT

What an horribly wrong question and answer! I agree with call.copse and with The CosmicTrickster: the question is plainly about the log file not the backup, but the answer is plainly about the backup, not the log file.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Rich Weissler — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 05:14:07 GMT

[quote][b]call.copse (4/16/2012)[/b]The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.[/quote]Hmm. Perhaps I'm missing something. Even if we are talking about the Log File... not the log backup... unless there was a subsequent Shrink Operation, it certainly will NOT be smaller. There is a fair chance it'll be the same size... and the question asks COULD it be bigger? It could be the same size, or bigger... but nothing says it HAS to be the same size (unless someone turned off autogrowth.)For me, I interpreted the question to be able to backup files of the transaction log... so I didn't even start thinking in these terms until I'd seen what you folks had written. ;-)

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Carlo Romagnano — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:57:52 GMT

[quote][b]Nakul Vachhrajani (4/15/2012)[/b][hr]The way I interpreted the question was:1. Database is in full-recovery mode2. User foresees bulk-operations (i.e. to be performed sometime in the future)3. User therefore changes the database to bulk-logged recovery mode4. User takes a log backup after changing the recovery modelI was unable to find a step that indicates whether bulk-logged operations were actually peformed. As log as bulk-logged operations are not performed, the log file size would not be impacted if the backup was taken immediately after changing the recovery model.In my humble opinion, the question leaves room for an interpretation that's different than what the actual intention is.[/quote]+1I'm waiting for Hugo opinion.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

call.copse — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 03:16:25 GMT

I would go further than the other posters on this thread - sorry, this question and the answer given are just plain WRONG.See this MSDN blog entry which clearly explains log sizes in different modes:[url=http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx]http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx[/url]The LOG FILE BACKUP is certainly likely to be larger.The LOG FILE (subsequent to backup) is almost certainly SMALLER given that it is not doing point in time restore.I will accept that the question could have been mangled unintentionally in the editorial prcess or something - but, the fact remains, the correct answer to the question as written is NO.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

Nakul Vachhrajani — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:38:05 GMT

The way I interpreted the question was:1. Database is in full-recovery mode2. User foresees bulk-operations (i.e. to be performed sometime in the future)3. User therefore changes the database to bulk-logged recovery mode4. User takes a log backup after changing the recovery modelI was unable to find a step that indicates whether bulk-logged operations were actually peformed. As log as bulk-logged operations are not performed, the log file size would not be impacted if the backup was taken immediately after changing the recovery model.In my humble opinion, the question leaves room for an interpretation that's different than what the actual intention is.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

The CosmicTrickster — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 15:21:12 GMT

"Now, after you take a log backup, could you see a log file bigger than usual?"No points for me. I perceive there being a difference between a "backup file" and a "log file". If someone says "log file" to me, I take it to mean the transaction log file, not the backup.

RE: Bulk Logged recovery model

mohamed_ajeez — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:30:22 GMT

Excerpt from the link:"Under the bulk-logged recovery model, if a log backup covers any bulk operations, the log backup contains both log records and the data pages that were changed by bulk operations. This is necessary to capture the results of the bulk-logged operations. The incorporated data extents can make a log backup very large."yes it is correct then in many artical explained in bulk-logged recovery log file not getting high size, which is true?, i checked out , in bulklog recovery log file getting high size during the operation, then what is use of bulklog recovery..

Bulk Logged recovery model

mohammed moinudheen — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 16:48:25 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Bulk Logged recovery model[/B]