Exclude table from transaction log

Hi
Does anyone know if it is possible that changes to a specific table are not
recorded in the transaction log while changes to other tables are ?
If yes how can this be done?
Thanks
Daniel
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comThat's not possible. Why do you want to do this?
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"DANR via SQLMonster.com" <u26179@.uwe> wrote in message
news:662d81586fb67@.uwe...
Hi
Does anyone know if it is possible that changes to a specific table are not
recorded in the transaction log while changes to other tables are ?
If yes how can this be done?
Thanks
Daniel
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Hi,
No. We can not do that. SQL Server engine by itself will log all the
transactions in to transaction log file.
Thanks
Hari
SQL Server MVP
"DANR via SQLMonster.com" <u26179@.uwe> wrote in message
news:662d81586fb67@.uwe...
> Hi
> Does anyone know if it is possible that changes to a specific table are
> not
> recorded in the transaction log while changes to other tables are ?
> If yes how can this be done?
> Thanks
> Daniel
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||Hi Tom
Because I have a table were I register several informations with thousands of
records but the information is not really critical and if something goes
wrong I don't need to recover that information.
This information is increasing the size of the transaction log without being
really necessary.
Thanks
Daniel
Tom Moreau wrote:
>That's not possible. Why do you want to do this?
>Hi
>Does anyone know if it is possible that changes to a specific table are not
>recorded in the transaction log while changes to other tables are ?
>If yes how can this be done?
>Thanks
>Daniel
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com|||Ok Hari
Thanks
Daniel
Hari Prasad wrote:
>Hi,
>No. We can not do that. SQL Server engine by itself will log all the
>transactions in to transaction log file.
>Thanks
>Hari
>SQL Server MVP
>> Hi
>[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> Thanks
>> Daniel
--
Message posted via SQLMonster.com
http://www.sqlmonster.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/sql-server/200609/1|||If you don't need that this table is time-correlated with the rest of the table in your backups,
consider putting it in its own database. Also, this database can be in simple recovery mode and you
can investigate if it is possible to input the data using a minimally logged operation (bulk loading
is probably the best bet).
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"DANR via SQLMonster.com" <u26179@.uwe> wrote in message news:662ee8ef93f81@.uwe...
> Hi Tom
> Because I have a table were I register several informations with thousands of
> records but the information is not really critical and if something goes
> wrong I don't need to recover that information.
> This information is increasing the size of the transaction log without being
> really necessary.
> Thanks
> Daniel
>
> Tom Moreau wrote:
>>That's not possible. Why do you want to do this?
>>Hi
>>Does anyone know if it is possible that changes to a specific table are not
>>recorded in the transaction log while changes to other tables are ?
>>If yes how can this be done?
>>Thanks
>>Daniel
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com
>|||Hi Tibor
Thanks for your sugestion. I already thought using that approach.
I just asked because maybe someone know other way.
Thanks to all
Regards
Daniel
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>If you don't need that this table is time-correlated with the rest of the table in your backups,
>consider putting it in its own database. Also, this database can be in simple recovery mode and you
>can investigate if it is possible to input the data using a minimally logged operation (bulk loading
>is probably the best bet).
>> Hi Tom
>[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>>Thanks
>>Daniel
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comsql