Avoiding transaction logging - at least reducing it

I have an application that uses work tables within an SP to generate a recordset output to the caller as the result of a search operation. The SP does not update the main database, and the results, although sizeable, are not saved.

Clearly I do not need to log the updates to the work tables. They start out empty and the contents could be discarded.

Does SQL Server recognise this and not log the updates to work tables? Is there any way I can indicate that a table is not significant and need not be logged at all?

Would it help to put the work tables in a separate database?

Maybe it would not make much difference anyway?

Thanks in advance for any helpFortunately (in a consistancy point of view), any update is logged, in user tables, system tables, worktables or tables in tempdb.

A specific traceflag allow the server to skip the logging, but it's not supported, not documented and... really dangerous !|||Originally posted by fadace
Fortunately (in a consistancy point of view), any update is logged, in user tables, system tables, worktables or tables in tempdb.

A specific traceflag allow the server to skip the logging, but it's not supported, not documented and... really dangerous !

Huh? Well I'm glad you didn't become very specific about what you're talking about.

Veritant:

You say Search to return result set, then you say update to work table

SELECTS are not logged

Creating a result set on the fly, like

SELECT * INTO #temp FROM...is not logged

TRUNCATE TABLE or DROP TABLE is not logged..

If you have some examples of what you're doing and need help, post it and we'll look at it...