Info on Restore

I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
I wish to return back to the previous state.
Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
were made.
Can i backup now the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
particular time ?
many thanks
On 18 Feb, 13:23, Zarko Jovanovic
<mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote:
> BOBO wrote:
>
>
> backup log, restore full, restore log stopat
> look in BOL for details
Hi,
Thanks to all.
Do you mean I have to restore the full Transaction log and next the
Transaction log with the StopAt? Why I need to restore the full TL
first?
|||I believe Zarko means for you to restore your last full database backup, and
then restore the log backup to the time you wish.
Check the BOL for detailed instructions on using "stopat".
"BOBO" wrote:

> On 18 Feb, 13:23, Zarko Jovanovic
> <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks to all.
> Do you mean I have to restore the full Transaction log and next the
> Transaction log with the StopAt? Why I need to restore the full TL
> first?
>
|||Hi,
look here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179451.aspx
this is good example for you
regards

Info on Restore

I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
I wish to return back to the previous state.
Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
were made.
Can i backup now the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
particular time ?
many thanksBOBO wrote:
> I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
> I wish to return back to the previous state.
> Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
> were made.
> Can i backup now the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
> particular time ?
>
> many thanks
yes|||BOBO wrote:
> I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
> I wish to return back to the previous state.
> Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
> were made.
> Can i backup now the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
> particular time ?
>
> many thanks
backup log, restore full, restore log stopat
look in BOL for details|||On 18 Feb, 13:23, Zarko Jovanovic
<mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote:
> BOBO wrote:
> > I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
> > I wish to return back to the previous state.
> > Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
> > were made.
> > Can i backup now =A0the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
> > particular time ?
> > many thanks
> backup log, restore full, restore log stopat
> look in BOL for details
Hi,
Thanks to all.
Do you mean I have to restore the full Transaction log and next the
Transaction log with the StopAt? Why I need to restore the full TL
first?|||I believe Zarko means for you to restore your last full database backup, and
then restore the log backup to the time you wish.
Check the BOL for detailed instructions on using "stopat".
"BOBO" wrote:
> On 18 Feb, 13:23, Zarko Jovanovic
> <mind_lessIsHsAsTsEsSsPsA...@.inet.hr> wrote:
> > BOBO wrote:
> > > I made wrong changes to my DB just today.
> >
> > > I wish to return back to the previous state.
> >
> > > Full Backup run daily in the night and nop Transaction Log backups
> > > were made.
> >
> > > Can i backup now the actual Transaction Log and next restore it at a
> > > particular time ?
> >
> > > many thanks
> >
> > backup log, restore full, restore log stopat
> > look in BOL for details
> Hi,
> Thanks to all.
> Do you mean I have to restore the full Transaction log and next the
> Transaction log with the StopAt? Why I need to restore the full TL
> first?
>|||Hi,
look here:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms179451.aspx
this is good example for you
--
regards

Indexes on separate Filegroups

Two questions. Let's suppose I have two file groups, Primary and Datagroup.
The Primary group is mirrored and has my system tables and transaction log
(Drive letter "D"). My tables and indexes are in the Datagroup on a separate
RAID 5 disk configuration (Drive letter "E"). Let us suppose I have available
a third RAID 5 disk configuration (Drive letter "F").
1. I just wanted to verify a thought: If all my tables have clustered indexes,
and since clustered indexes reside on the data pages themselves, then it
would NOT make sense to put my clustered indexes on a separate file or disk
from my data file. True or False? My guess is that the answer is true. Please
verify.
2. In the case of non-clustered indexes (where all the corresponding tables
have clustered indexes), there could possibly be a performance gain by
placing the non-clustered indexes on a separate file (say, Drive letter "F")
from my data. True or False? My guess is that the answer is true. Please
verify.
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
"cbrichards via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5e60b49711dd2@.uwe...
> Two questions. Let's suppose I have two file groups, Primary and
> Datagroup.
> The Primary group is mirrored and has my system tables and transaction log
> (Drive letter "D"). My tables and indexes are in the Datagroup on a
> separate
> RAID 5 disk configuration (Drive letter "E"). Let us suppose I have
> available
> a third RAID 5 disk configuration (Drive letter "F").
> 1. I just wanted to verify a thought: If all my tables have clustered
> indexes,
> and since clustered indexes reside on the data pages themselves, then it
> would NOT make sense to put my clustered indexes on a separate file or
> disk
> from my data file. True or False? My guess is that the answer is true.
> Please
> verify.
>
True. That would just move the tables to the other filegroup.

> 2. In the case of non-clustered indexes (where all the corresponding
> tables
> have clustered indexes), there could possibly be a performance gain by
> placing the non-clustered indexes on a separate file (say, Drive letter
> "F")
> from my data. True or False? My guess is that the answer is true. Please
> verify.
False. Seperating tables and indexes rarely helps, and is essentially an
obsolete micro-optimization of the physical database design. The large
memory size of modern servers makes physical IO on your non-clustered
indexes rare and unpredictable enough that you shouldn't dedicate a physical
IO channel to your indexes. A better idea would be to spread all your
objects across both disks by adding additional files to your data filegroup,
or monitor your physical IO and move objects to the other disk to roughly
balance the traffic.
David