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

From: Brian Dick <bdick_at_cox.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 14:59:46 -0500
Message-ID: <kph48bk7nolx$.1dyli46ofitkf.dlg@40tude.net>

On 14 Nov 2004 19:12:55 -0800, Matt wrote:

> 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 only put the 1's on the disk and left off the 0's. Also, even though 0's were nothing, they were wider than the 1's and therefore took up more space. Received on Tue Nov 16 2004 - 13:59:46 CST