call.copse (4/16/2012)

---

sknox (4/16/2012)

---

call.copse (4/16/2012)

---

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:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/suhde/archive/2010/12/29/transaction-log-backup-size-in-bulk-logged-recovery-model.aspx

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.

I would say that since the question read "...could 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 constrain 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.

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.