dbcc shrinkdb

hi,
I need to shring a SQL 2000 db by 50GB. Is it better to start sql in single
user mode when doing such action?I believe you will find that the database will be put into single user mode
for the life of your shrink session automatically. But it might simplify
matters to do it manually.
Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
"stoney" wrote:

> hi,
> I need to shring a SQL 2000 db by 50GB. Is it better to start sql in sing
le
> user mode when doing such action?|||Thanks very much for your prompt response. Does the system have a better
performance if I shrink the database more often? Say if I shrink the
database every 3 months.
Thanks.
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4CA50BF-C163-4968-82CD-E64AAAD20AD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I believe you will find that the database will be put into single user mode
> for the life of your shrink session automatically. But it might simplify
> matters to do it manually.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "stoney" wrote:
>|||In my humble opinion database server perform better with their logs shrunk
and stored in medias.
The data are more important than the logs.
and logs are overhead to database services
thats why a sound backup and restore strategy must implemented
thanks,
Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
Data Architect
Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
MCP #2324787
"Diane Walker" wrote:

> Thanks very much for your prompt response. Does the system have a better
> performance if I shrink the database more often? Say if I shrink the
> database every 3 months.
> Thanks.
> "jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E4CA50BF-C163-4968-82CD-E64AAAD20AD7@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Shrinking does not require the db to be in single user mode and there is
nothing that does that automatically.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:E4CA50BF-C163-4968-82CD-E64AAAD20AD7@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
>I believe you will find that the database will be put into single user mode
> for the life of your shrink session automatically. But it might simplify
> matters to do it manually.
>
> --
> Joseph R.P. Maloney, CSP,CCP,CDP
>
> "stoney" wrote:
>|||Actually you get better performance if you don't shrink it at all in most
cases. If you need to keep shrinking it that is a pretty good indication it
wants to be larger than you think it should be. So leave it alone. See
this:
http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OI6jb4EwFHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Thanks very much for your prompt response. Does the system have a better
> performance if I shrink the database more often? Say if I shrink the
> database every 3 months.
> Thanks.
> "jrpm" <jrpm@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:E4CA50BF-C163-4968-82CD-E64AAAD20AD7@.microsoft.com...
>|||Just the opposite. Transaction logs are crucial to performance on SQL
Server. Since all data manipulation is sent to the transaction log first it
will slow everything else down if it can not write fast enough. By
shrinking the log files too much you will force them to grow just when it
needs to write entries to the log file. They then must wait on that
operation to complete before they can continue.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" <Email me> wrote in message
news:986EDB0C-E8C8-47F5-8646-175E0CE40A22@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> In my humble opinion database server perform better with their logs shrunk
> and stored in medias.
> The data are more important than the logs.
> and logs are overhead to database services
> thats why a sound backup and restore strategy must implemented
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787
>
> "Diane Walker" wrote:
>|||Thanks very much for the information.
"Jose G. de Jesus Jr MCP, MCDBA" <Email me> wrote in message
news:986EDB0C-E8C8-47F5-8646-175E0CE40A22@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> In my humble opinion database server perform better with their logs shrunk
> and stored in medias.
> The data are more important than the logs.
> and logs are overhead to database services
> thats why a sound backup and restore strategy must implemented
> --
> thanks,
> --
> Jose de Jesus Jr. Mcp,Mcdba
> Data Architect
> Sykes Asia (Manila philippines)
> MCP #2324787
>
> "Diane Walker" wrote:
>|||My database file is 55 MB. The transaction log is 14 GB. Do you recommend
that I leave the transaction log alone? Thanks.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uKa26MFwFHA.2516@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Actually you get better performance if you don't shrink it at all in most
> cases. If you need to keep shrinking it that is a pretty good indication
> it wants to be larger than you think it should be. So leave it alone.
> See this:
> http://www.karaszi.com/SQLServer/info_dont_shrink.asp
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:OI6jb4EwFHA.4032@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>|||No that is excessive and warrants a shrinking<g>. But why did it get there
in the first place? Chances are you are in FULL recovery mode and only issue
Full backups. You need to issue regular (at least several times a day) LOG
backups in order for the log to truncate the committed transactions and
reuse the space. If you don't want to do Log backups then change the
recovery mode to SIMPLE and it will keep it in check for you.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Diane Walker" <ett9300@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:u3917jGwFHA.3720@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> My database file is 55 MB. The transaction log is 14 GB. Do you
> recommend that I leave the transaction log alone? Thanks.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uKa26MFwFHA.2516@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>