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

On Apr 12, 5:53 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

Are you using some sort of autoextend? For example, you've got a wellpacked  95M of data on Oracle, which grows to 105 by some mechanism the other posters have postulated, but you are autoextending 100M, so you wind up with 200M used... also, I'm given to understand MS auto-extend can be expressed as a percentage, growing much more rapidly than one would expect, like the silly old Oracle pctincrease 50.

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.
http://nymag.com/guides/2007/officelife/30010/