Nice article, but it just reinforces a query I've had for a while: why does bulk-logged recovery mode even exist? It has some hefty downsides compared to full recovery, and the only advantage I can see is that your log file might not get quite so big when using it, which seems a fairly minimal sort of advantage to my mind. Does someone with more SQL experience than me (i.e. practically everybody) have an example of a situation where it's really better to use bulk-logged recovery mode?
When you want to do major data loads, you don't want the overhead of full logging (nor the log growth) but you don't want to switch to simple recovery.
Let's say someone's bulk-inserting 50GB of data (maybe a bit extreme). In full recovery, that's at least 50GB of log space used. In bulk-logged, it's a lot less.
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)SQL In The Wild
: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass