Re: Slightly OT: Size of Oracle vs MS SQL database tables

On 12 abr, 15:24, "hpuxrac" <johnbhur..._at_sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 8:53 am, m..._at_familysquires.net (Michael L. Squires) wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm working at a place where we're moving from an Oracle 10g environment to
> > a mixed Oracle/MS SQL Server 2005 environment. (Main reason is cost; the
> > Oracle software bid was five times the MS bid).
>
> > We've moved one database over to MS SQL Server 2005 and have discovered that
> > all of our data tables more than double in size under MS SQL Server 2005.
> > The net effect is to more than double the amount of disk space required to
> > implement the same database.
>
> > A search of various sources of MS information haven't turned up a magic
> > switch to reduce the size of these tables.
>
> > Any pointer to some information about this difference, expecially if there's
> > something obvious that we're missing, would be greatly appreciated.
>
> > Mike Squires
>
> What exactly has caused this change in the database sizes?
>
> If your organization has already completed on move it looks like you
> should dig in and research in detail what is different and why it is
> different.
>
> 4K worth of data is still the same amount in oracle or sql server ...
> what type of changes were made in how you have organized data and
> indexes?

I don't know much about SQL Server (willing to learn though) but I seem to remember that Win / SQLServer uses UCS-2/UTF16 little endian. That would double the size of all the char/varchar2 data stored in, let's say UTF8.

Am I correct?

Cheers.

Carlos. Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 09:25:35 CDT