<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When To Use Auto Shrink</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 May 2012 00:44:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Forrest Pugh</title>
		<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/comment-page-1/#comment-6782</link>
		<dc:creator>Forrest Pugh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Mar 2012 03:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1295#comment-6782</guid>
		<description>I think the only situation in which I can recommend this one similar to our shop - because of audit requirements we need to keep a copy of the data at each step of the import/append/analyze process. Of course we are pretty vertical in our processing and availability is not so much of a factor.

With several &quot;mirror&quot; databases supporting the main analysis process, shrinking any transaction logs and datafiles in these dbs before archiving is essentially a requirement - the integrity of the data tables themselves is all that really matters.

Likewise discrete analyses are done in separate databases extracted from an appended set. In these DBs many process tables are created that are not required for the final reporting, and likewise a number of statistics and indices are generated that will not be used after the reporting is complete. The overhead objects can be lost entirely, and the space released before detaching and archiving.

While this is a very atypical scenario - if you work in an environment where the ability to reproduce exactly a certain result set is necessary this can be fairly bullet proof, but it DOES eat up quite a bit of storage space - so removing the unnecessary information and then compacting the files as much as possible is sort of an implicit requirement.

And as Brant says - every once in a while someone might need to do a query on one of these historical sets which has not yet been shipped off to archive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think the only situation in which I can recommend this one similar to our shop &#8211; because of audit requirements we need to keep a copy of the data at each step of the import/append/analyze process. Of course we are pretty vertical in our processing and availability is not so much of a factor.</p>
<p>With several &#8220;mirror&#8221; databases supporting the main analysis process, shrinking any transaction logs and datafiles in these dbs before archiving is essentially a requirement &#8211; the integrity of the data tables themselves is all that really matters.</p>
<p>Likewise discrete analyses are done in separate databases extracted from an appended set. In these DBs many process tables are created that are not required for the final reporting, and likewise a number of statistics and indices are generated that will not be used after the reporting is complete. The overhead objects can be lost entirely, and the space released before detaching and archiving.</p>
<p>While this is a very atypical scenario &#8211; if you work in an environment where the ability to reproduce exactly a certain result set is necessary this can be fairly bullet proof, but it DOES eat up quite a bit of storage space &#8211; so removing the unnecessary information and then compacting the files as much as possible is sort of an implicit requirement.</p>
<p>And as Brant says &#8211; every once in a while someone might need to do a query on one of these historical sets which has not yet been shipped off to archive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stop Shrinking Your Database Files. Seriously. Now. &#124; Brent Ozar - SQL Server DBA</title>
		<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/comment-page-1/#comment-423</link>
		<dc:creator>Stop Shrinking Your Database Files. Seriously. Now. &#124; Brent Ozar - SQL Server DBA</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 20:37:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1295#comment-423</guid>
		<description>[...] Tom LaRock &#8211; &#8220;When to Use AutoShrink&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Tom LaRock &#8211; &#8220;When to Use AutoShrink&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brant Wedel</title>
		<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/comment-page-1/#comment-422</link>
		<dc:creator>Brant Wedel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:00:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1295#comment-422</guid>
		<description>Lol, its an option for databases storing historical data sets that other people have access to that might do a query causing a large file size jump, and maybe you have hundreds of these databases on a single server because your cheap and if they all were allowed to expand the server wouldn&#039;t hold them all in thier &#039;unshrunk&#039; state =P.  SCADA databases are a good example of where AutoShrink might be useful im currently looking into it as we would like to continue using SqlExpress which has a 4 gig limit.  And we will be doing monthly queries on the data, so performance is not a requirement.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lol, its an option for databases storing historical data sets that other people have access to that might do a query causing a large file size jump, and maybe you have hundreds of these databases on a single server because your cheap and if they all were allowed to expand the server wouldn&#8217;t hold them all in thier &#8216;unshrunk&#8217; state =P.  SCADA databases are a good example of where AutoShrink might be useful im currently looking into it as we would like to continue using SqlExpress which has a 4 gig limit.  And we will be doing monthly queries on the data, so performance is not a requirement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SQLBatman</title>
		<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/comment-page-1/#comment-421</link>
		<dc:creator>SQLBatman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 02:08:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1295#comment-421</guid>
		<description>Wow, Paul. If they would not listen to you, what hope is there for the rest of us?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Paul. If they would not listen to you, what hope is there for the rest of us?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Randal</title>
		<link>http://thomaslarock.com/2009/03/when-to-use-auto-shrink/comment-page-1/#comment-420</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Randal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sqlbatman.com/?p=1295#comment-420</guid>
		<description>Back when I was responsible for the whole Core Storage Engine at MS, I tried to have auto-shrink removed from the product - and failed. Backwards-compatibility trumped the ability for DBAs to shoot themselves in the foot. At least I managed to remove the &#039;Repair minor corruptions&#039; options from the maintenance plan wizard... Cheers</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Back when I was responsible for the whole Core Storage Engine at MS, I tried to have auto-shrink removed from the product &#8211; and failed. Backwards-compatibility trumped the ability for DBAs to shoot themselves in the foot. At least I managed to remove the &#8216;Repair minor corruptions&#8217; options from the maintenance plan wizard&#8230; Cheers</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 1/15 queries in 0.006 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 510/514 objects using disk: basic

Served from: thomaslarock.com @ 2012-05-21 11:59:17 -->
