What's the most efficient way to reclaim unused DB hard drive space?












0















Disclaimer: I'm not a DBA and am asking this question to help research a problem a colleague is having.



We have a database that unintentionally ballooned to 300+ GB. We have turned off the option that caused this in our application, but we want to purge the offending data (in only 1 table) and reclaim the space it was taking up on the hard drive. We have tried truncating the table and then shrinking it on a copy of the production database, but this process takes about a week.



Is there a quicker/better/more efficient way to do this? I have read that shrinking a database is a taboo among DBAs because it introduces index fragmentation.



We are using Microsoft SQL Server.



"Best way" translates to quickest and least likely to cause us issues in the future (like index fragmentation might). We are trying to make this as quick as possible so that our database won't be tied up for several days deleting data and shrinking files.










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.






migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 11 '16 at 21:28


This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.



















  • It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

    – paparazzo
    Oct 11 '16 at 21:54











  • Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

    – ypercubeᵀᴹ
    Oct 11 '16 at 22:42






  • 1





    I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

    – Scott Hodgin
    Oct 12 '16 at 9:44
















0















Disclaimer: I'm not a DBA and am asking this question to help research a problem a colleague is having.



We have a database that unintentionally ballooned to 300+ GB. We have turned off the option that caused this in our application, but we want to purge the offending data (in only 1 table) and reclaim the space it was taking up on the hard drive. We have tried truncating the table and then shrinking it on a copy of the production database, but this process takes about a week.



Is there a quicker/better/more efficient way to do this? I have read that shrinking a database is a taboo among DBAs because it introduces index fragmentation.



We are using Microsoft SQL Server.



"Best way" translates to quickest and least likely to cause us issues in the future (like index fragmentation might). We are trying to make this as quick as possible so that our database won't be tied up for several days deleting data and shrinking files.










share|improve this question
















bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.






migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 11 '16 at 21:28


This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.



















  • It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

    – paparazzo
    Oct 11 '16 at 21:54











  • Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

    – ypercubeᵀᴹ
    Oct 11 '16 at 22:42






  • 1





    I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

    – Scott Hodgin
    Oct 12 '16 at 9:44














0












0








0








Disclaimer: I'm not a DBA and am asking this question to help research a problem a colleague is having.



We have a database that unintentionally ballooned to 300+ GB. We have turned off the option that caused this in our application, but we want to purge the offending data (in only 1 table) and reclaim the space it was taking up on the hard drive. We have tried truncating the table and then shrinking it on a copy of the production database, but this process takes about a week.



Is there a quicker/better/more efficient way to do this? I have read that shrinking a database is a taboo among DBAs because it introduces index fragmentation.



We are using Microsoft SQL Server.



"Best way" translates to quickest and least likely to cause us issues in the future (like index fragmentation might). We are trying to make this as quick as possible so that our database won't be tied up for several days deleting data and shrinking files.










share|improve this question
















Disclaimer: I'm not a DBA and am asking this question to help research a problem a colleague is having.



We have a database that unintentionally ballooned to 300+ GB. We have turned off the option that caused this in our application, but we want to purge the offending data (in only 1 table) and reclaim the space it was taking up on the hard drive. We have tried truncating the table and then shrinking it on a copy of the production database, but this process takes about a week.



Is there a quicker/better/more efficient way to do this? I have read that shrinking a database is a taboo among DBAs because it introduces index fragmentation.



We are using Microsoft SQL Server.



"Best way" translates to quickest and least likely to cause us issues in the future (like index fragmentation might). We are trying to make this as quick as possible so that our database won't be tied up for several days deleting data and shrinking files.







sql-server shrink truncate






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Oct 11 '16 at 22:39









ypercubeᵀᴹ

77.4k11134216




77.4k11134216










asked Oct 11 '16 at 21:19









martin122089martin122089

42




42





bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.







bumped to the homepage by Community 9 mins ago


This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.






migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 11 '16 at 21:28


This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.









migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 11 '16 at 21:28


This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.















  • It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

    – paparazzo
    Oct 11 '16 at 21:54











  • Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

    – ypercubeᵀᴹ
    Oct 11 '16 at 22:42






  • 1





    I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

    – Scott Hodgin
    Oct 12 '16 at 9:44



















  • It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

    – paparazzo
    Oct 11 '16 at 21:54











  • Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

    – ypercubeᵀᴹ
    Oct 11 '16 at 22:42






  • 1





    I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

    – Scott Hodgin
    Oct 12 '16 at 9:44

















It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

– paparazzo
Oct 11 '16 at 21:54





It start with this msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx I don't think you can shrink a single table file only. When done then rebuild the fractured indexes.

– paparazzo
Oct 11 '16 at 21:54













Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 11 '16 at 22:42





Please add version (2008, 2008R2, 2012, etc) and edition (Standard, Enterprise, Azure, etc)

– ypercubeᵀᴹ
Oct 11 '16 at 22:42




1




1





I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

– Scott Hodgin
Oct 12 '16 at 9:44





I think you'll most likely have to go with Randolph's solution, but you 'might' get some relief if you try SHRINKFILE TRUNCATEONLY - (msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms189493.aspx) - Releases all free space at the end of the file to the operating system but does not perform any page movement inside the file. The data file is shrunk only to the last allocated extent.

– Scott Hodgin
Oct 12 '16 at 9:44










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















0














There are two options for this kind of scenario:



1) Shrink the data file, and then rebuild the indexes. As you say, this is time consuming and you're largely at the whim of the storage subsystem.



2) Create a new filegroup, and migrate all the data into the new filegroup, one table at a time. Shrink the old filegroup when you're done, and either move everything back again, or leave it as is.



This second option adds some complexity, and additional maintenance for the extra FG, but is probably what you're after, since you can move one table at a time. You would do this by altering each table's clustered index to rebuild in the new filegroup.



Adding a Filegroup:



(See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522469.aspx)



USE master  
GO
ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012
ADD FILEGROUP NewFG;
GO


Adding a File to a Filegroup:



ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012   
ADD FILE
(
NAME = FG2,
FILENAME = 'G:DATAFG2.ndf',
SIZE = 500MB,
MAXSIZE = UNLIMITED,
FILEGROWTH = 250MB
)
TO FILEGROUP NewFG;
GO


Rebuilding the clustered index in the new filegroup:



CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [PK_Example] ON Test.dbo.Example(ExampleID) 
WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON [NewFG]
GO





share|improve this answer































    -2














    I am pretty sure that truncating is the most efficient way. However, you may want to re-index the table. Hope this helps!






    share|improve this answer























      Your Answer








      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "182"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152026%2fwhats-the-most-efficient-way-to-reclaim-unused-db-hard-drive-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      0














      There are two options for this kind of scenario:



      1) Shrink the data file, and then rebuild the indexes. As you say, this is time consuming and you're largely at the whim of the storage subsystem.



      2) Create a new filegroup, and migrate all the data into the new filegroup, one table at a time. Shrink the old filegroup when you're done, and either move everything back again, or leave it as is.



      This second option adds some complexity, and additional maintenance for the extra FG, but is probably what you're after, since you can move one table at a time. You would do this by altering each table's clustered index to rebuild in the new filegroup.



      Adding a Filegroup:



      (See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522469.aspx)



      USE master  
      GO
      ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012
      ADD FILEGROUP NewFG;
      GO


      Adding a File to a Filegroup:



      ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012   
      ADD FILE
      (
      NAME = FG2,
      FILENAME = 'G:DATAFG2.ndf',
      SIZE = 500MB,
      MAXSIZE = UNLIMITED,
      FILEGROWTH = 250MB
      )
      TO FILEGROUP NewFG;
      GO


      Rebuilding the clustered index in the new filegroup:



      CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [PK_Example] ON Test.dbo.Example(ExampleID) 
      WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON [NewFG]
      GO





      share|improve this answer




























        0














        There are two options for this kind of scenario:



        1) Shrink the data file, and then rebuild the indexes. As you say, this is time consuming and you're largely at the whim of the storage subsystem.



        2) Create a new filegroup, and migrate all the data into the new filegroup, one table at a time. Shrink the old filegroup when you're done, and either move everything back again, or leave it as is.



        This second option adds some complexity, and additional maintenance for the extra FG, but is probably what you're after, since you can move one table at a time. You would do this by altering each table's clustered index to rebuild in the new filegroup.



        Adding a Filegroup:



        (See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522469.aspx)



        USE master  
        GO
        ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012
        ADD FILEGROUP NewFG;
        GO


        Adding a File to a Filegroup:



        ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012   
        ADD FILE
        (
        NAME = FG2,
        FILENAME = 'G:DATAFG2.ndf',
        SIZE = 500MB,
        MAXSIZE = UNLIMITED,
        FILEGROWTH = 250MB
        )
        TO FILEGROUP NewFG;
        GO


        Rebuilding the clustered index in the new filegroup:



        CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [PK_Example] ON Test.dbo.Example(ExampleID) 
        WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON [NewFG]
        GO





        share|improve this answer


























          0












          0








          0







          There are two options for this kind of scenario:



          1) Shrink the data file, and then rebuild the indexes. As you say, this is time consuming and you're largely at the whim of the storage subsystem.



          2) Create a new filegroup, and migrate all the data into the new filegroup, one table at a time. Shrink the old filegroup when you're done, and either move everything back again, or leave it as is.



          This second option adds some complexity, and additional maintenance for the extra FG, but is probably what you're after, since you can move one table at a time. You would do this by altering each table's clustered index to rebuild in the new filegroup.



          Adding a Filegroup:



          (See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522469.aspx)



          USE master  
          GO
          ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012
          ADD FILEGROUP NewFG;
          GO


          Adding a File to a Filegroup:



          ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012   
          ADD FILE
          (
          NAME = FG2,
          FILENAME = 'G:DATAFG2.ndf',
          SIZE = 500MB,
          MAXSIZE = UNLIMITED,
          FILEGROWTH = 250MB
          )
          TO FILEGROUP NewFG;
          GO


          Rebuilding the clustered index in the new filegroup:



          CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [PK_Example] ON Test.dbo.Example(ExampleID) 
          WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON [NewFG]
          GO





          share|improve this answer













          There are two options for this kind of scenario:



          1) Shrink the data file, and then rebuild the indexes. As you say, this is time consuming and you're largely at the whim of the storage subsystem.



          2) Create a new filegroup, and migrate all the data into the new filegroup, one table at a time. Shrink the old filegroup when you're done, and either move everything back again, or leave it as is.



          This second option adds some complexity, and additional maintenance for the extra FG, but is probably what you're after, since you can move one table at a time. You would do this by altering each table's clustered index to rebuild in the new filegroup.



          Adding a Filegroup:



          (See https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb522469.aspx)



          USE master  
          GO
          ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012
          ADD FILEGROUP NewFG;
          GO


          Adding a File to a Filegroup:



          ALTER DATABASE AdventureWorks2012   
          ADD FILE
          (
          NAME = FG2,
          FILENAME = 'G:DATAFG2.ndf',
          SIZE = 500MB,
          MAXSIZE = UNLIMITED,
          FILEGROWTH = 250MB
          )
          TO FILEGROUP NewFG;
          GO


          Rebuilding the clustered index in the new filegroup:



          CREATE UNIQUE CLUSTERED INDEX [PK_Example] ON Test.dbo.Example(ExampleID) 
          WITH (DROP_EXISTING = ON) ON [NewFG]
          GO






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Oct 12 '16 at 4:09









          Randolph WestRandolph West

          2,649215




          2,649215

























              -2














              I am pretty sure that truncating is the most efficient way. However, you may want to re-index the table. Hope this helps!






              share|improve this answer




























                -2














                I am pretty sure that truncating is the most efficient way. However, you may want to re-index the table. Hope this helps!






                share|improve this answer


























                  -2












                  -2








                  -2







                  I am pretty sure that truncating is the most efficient way. However, you may want to re-index the table. Hope this helps!






                  share|improve this answer













                  I am pretty sure that truncating is the most efficient way. However, you may want to re-index the table. Hope this helps!







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Oct 11 '16 at 21:24







                  Mark Ellis





































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to Database Administrators Stack Exchange!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fdba.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f152026%2fwhats-the-most-efficient-way-to-reclaim-unused-db-hard-drive-space%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Ronny Ackermann

                      Köttigit

                      MySQL 8.0.15 starts normally but any connection hangs