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

In article <1176387935.270516.225230_at_l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, Carlos <miotromailcarlos_at_netscape.net> wrote:
>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.

I don't know if you're correct, but the size increase matches.

Mike Squires Received on Thu Apr 12 2007 - 20:00:22 CDT