InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 20 Jun 2013 02:17:51 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspx[quote][b]Mick Opalak (1/8/2013)[/b][hr]That was it. This table is a heap.Thanks for the help.[/quote]Did you add a clustered index or resolve it in some way or do you now need to take a look at how to resolve it?Tue, 08 Jan 2013 09:11:32 GMTCapnHectorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspxThat was it. This table is a heap.Thanks for the help.Tue, 08 Jan 2013 07:39:56 GMTMick Opalakhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspx[quote][b]Mick Opalak (1/7/2013)[/b][hr]I verified the row counts using COUNT(*) and they match, as I would expect. However, the publisher has a much larger data size.[/quote]Is there a clustered index or is this a heap? Heaps do have an issue of not releasing space from delete records [url]http://support.microsoft.com/kb/913399[/url]. Its a known "Issue" with heaps and why i tend to use a clustered index on every table.Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:54:14 GMTCapnHectorhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspxI verified the row counts using COUNT(*) and they match, as I would expect. However, the publisher has a much larger data size.Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:07:24 GMTMick Opalakhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspxthe other way to confirm the number of rows in 2 tables select Count(*) from table and is same number of rows in both tables ?Mon, 07 Jan 2013 14:00:32 GMT@SQLFRNDZhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic1403863-391-1.aspxI have a table, I'll call it "X", in a database which is replicated to another server via Merge replication. On the Publisher the space information for the table looks like this:name rows reserved data index_size unusedX 1296 772848 KB 772232 KB 136 KB 480 KBThe replicated table on the subsciber looks like this:name rows reserved data index_size unusedX 1176 488 KB 216 KB 112 KB 160 KBNotice that the subscriber table is much smaller and in line with what we would expect for this table. Can anyone offer an explanation why one would be so much bigger than the other? I've run DBCC UPDATEUSAGE on both sides to make sure that the information is accurate.Mon, 07 Jan 2013 13:48:30 GMTMick Opalak