Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is anyone currently using the new Change Data Capture Feature in SQL2008? We are starting to research and wonder if this should be used versus the trigger method.

If you have experience with this feature, any pros or cons would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in Advance,


share|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

We're in the early stages of replacing lots of triggers with CDC; so far no surprises, works great, vastly improved performance. Biggest gotcha is being aware of the size potential of the change files; many of our updates are many single column updates so we wind up with 40 or 50 before and afters in the change table.

Overall looks very promising.

share|improve this answer
We are going forward with them, but it is a single table with only a few columns. I still prefer the triggers. I would only have a couple of triggers and one table. Much less overhead for this scenerio, but we are experimenting with CDC. Another gotcha is that when you disable the CDC on a table, the history tables are dropped and you lose your history. No warnings, your tables are just gone. – Iceman Aug 6 '10 at 12:15
Agreed on your gotcha...our one gotcha so far is restoring databases with CDC enabled requires an extra parameter if sa doesn't own it. That and watching space used on those change tables. – SqlACID Aug 15 '10 at 23:11

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.