Both Oracle and SQL 7 have equivalent settings and I am sure if you got a
good DBA (or spent hours of your own time.)
to look at the Oracle server the data would take up a similar amount of
room.
Here in lies the main difference between Oracle and MS SQL 7 .
MS SQL 7 does not require a high powered and overpaid DBA to work well!!
Oracle should heed this as a warning. I can not sell it to small to medium
sized businesses because of this.
Robert
Yuri Khait <yurikhait_at_home.com> wrote in message
news:37B22540.D97CE466_at_home.com...
> I did not do anything special, just installed Oracle8 on NT with all
> defaults, created my schema tables with primary keys) without
> specifying tablesapce and storage (everything default).
> Then I started loading data with SQLLOADER (direct method). Then I
> started creating a new datafiles when I ran out of space. After data was
> loaded I used Oracle Enterprise Manager to see how much space allocated
> and used in my tablespace (it was only one by default). There was some
> unused space but not much.
>
> Yuri.
>
> Jim Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > 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 Thu Aug 12 1999 - 04:21:10 CDT
