Re: DBCC DBREINDEX and Transactional Replication

From: Paul Ibison (Paul.Ibison_at_Pygmalion.Com)
Date: 08/11/04 

Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:20:45 +0100

> In my experience with sqlserver 7 as primary server ( I hope that stated
> this way I won't offend Paul:) )

Not at all :-)

> dbcc reindex does not produce any insert/delete or log consumption.

In SQL 2000 I've seen the log impact of DBCC DBREINDEX as high, but it can
minimal if the bulk-logged recovery model is used. This may be another
reason, apart from locking, to select DBCC IndexDefrag as the logging is
much less.

Regards,

Paul Ibison

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DBReindex
    ... The job I posted was for SQL 2000 - the script was something my predecessor ... I was surprised to discover that dbcc dbreindex may ... fetch next from c_Tables into @TableName ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)
  • Re: DBReindex
    ... dbreindex titled "Can anyone 'crash course' me in SQL Maintenance?" ... I was surprised to discover that dbcc dbreindex may ... question the result of the logs getting so large. ... fetch next from c_Tables into @TableName ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.security)
  • Re: DBCC DBREINDEX and Transactional Replication
    ... Am aware of the log impact. ... I have still not been able to duplicate ... "Paul Ibison" wrote: ... > In SQL 2000 I've seen the log impact of DBCC DBREINDEX as high, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.replication)