Re: Size of "0" versus NULL ?

From: Ana C. Dent <anacedent_at_hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 02:32:36 GMT
Message-ID: <Xns9324BCA22B897SunnySD@68.6.19.6>

Frank Rizzo <franklynrizzo_at_REMOVE_THIS_BIT.today.com.au> wrote in news:MPG.18baeb03eee05080989684_at_news.cdn.telstra.com.au:

> 
> Hi, 
> 
> I have not had any reply and I was wondering if I've asked
> something that is a FAQ (can someone point me to a faq, document,
> manual, or anything else so i can work this out).
> 
> 
> In article <MPG.18adb55b35fd6ff4989683_at_news.cdn.telstra.com.au>, 
> franklynrizzo_at_REMOVE_THIS_BIT.today.com.au says...

>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> I have a table with NUMBER(4). The table has ~ 7 million records. I
>> want to know what the space saving is if i convert all the zeroes to
>> NULLs ?
>>
>> How do I go about calculating this accurately.
>>
>> It will be something like:
>>
>> 7 million * (sizeof zero - sizeoff NULL) ??
>>
>> How do I find the size of storing a single zero (does it change if the
>> column was NUMBER(30), for instance ???) and the size of storing a NULL.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any info.
>>
>>
>>

>

When all else fails, you could show some individual initiative and do your OWN empirical test and actually measure the results.

Which will you & your boss believe more/better; an answer from anonymous stranger or actual proof that you can see & replicate for yourself?

The answer which everyone knows to be true is "42". Received on Sun Feb 16 2003 - 20:32:36 CST