Re: Oracle8/NT vs MS SQL 7.0

There is a difference in a datafile between used space and allocated space. This may be the problem. (In Oracle) For example: I could create a tablespace with a 2 gig datafile. Then I could do:

create table example (col1 number not null, col2 varchar2(255)) tablespace mine storage(initial 100m next 1m);

The tablespace itself would be 2 gigs in size. The table example would have 100 megs allocated to it, but the data in the table (none at this point) is taking up very little space.

In Oracle I can also control how much of the space is used in a block to allow for row growth on updates. If I am going to insert rows into a table that is readonly from there on out I would specify a low percent free number. If I was going to have a table that had a lot of updates to it I would specify a higher percent free number.

I think this may be the answer to what you are seeing. There probably are some storage differences between Oracle and MS SQL server, but I am sure the differences are fairly small and would depend upon the data. Jim

Yuri Khait <yurikhait_at_home.com> wrote in message news:37B0D7DB.C9CF6800_at_home.com...
> I've found that it takes 3-4 times more disk space to store the same
> amount of data(including indexes) in Oracle8 than in MS SQL 7.0 I could
> not find any documents which compare disk storage on Oracle and MS SQL
> 7.0. I have 60GB database on MS SQL 7.0, according to my tests it will
> take > 200GB in Oracle.
> Any comments ?????
>
> Tnx,
> Yuri.
Received on Wed Aug 11 1999 - 11:26:54 CDT