Re: Why the size of Oracle 10g database is much smaller than Oracle 9i?

From: Jim Kennedy <kennedy-downwithspammersfamily_at_attbi.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 03:43:41 GMT
Message-ID: <hAVld.40974$5K2.16424@attbi_s03>

"Matt" <jrefactors_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ba8a039e.0411141912.71c7d598_at_posting.google.com...
> Oracle 10g only requires 1 disk (604MB); whereas Oracle 9i requires 3
> disks (1.3 GB). I was very surprised why Oracle 10g requires so less
> disk spaces.
> Am I missing something? Or this is the improvement from Oracle
> on disk size? I assume Oracle 10g is much more better than Oracle 9i
> in terms of technologies and performance. Any comments from Oracle 10g
> users?
>
> Please advise. Thanks!!

They refactored it and made it a lot more efficient and smaller. Jim Received on Sun Nov 14 2004 - 21:43:41 CST