InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comThu, 23 May 2013 09:05:20 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxHi Did the table(s) that you did compression had any XML datatype columns in it? I am been doing some prototype where I see that compression does saves a lot of space, but only when there is no XML column.When a table have a XML column in it as major contributor to table size, the compression does not show any significant savings in data space.Just wanted to know you if you had any such scenario of XML columns in your tables?ThanksThu, 08 Nov 2012 16:17:32 GMTDeepak Kolapkar http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxThe only way to know how much compression you would actually get is to actually try it on your data.Install SQL 2008 developer somewhereImport a sample of your largest tables into the 2008 database, use sp_estimate_data_compression_savings to check the compression you would actually get.In my environment PAGE compression compressed my data with over 70%./SGThu, 08 Apr 2010 10:41:53 GMTStefan_Ghttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxmost of our data is varchar, may be 90%Thu, 08 Apr 2010 09:02:22 GMTTara-1044200http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxRegarding compressed tables/ data- PAGE compression gives more compression ratio than ROW compression.Page compression uses the actual logic for compression. Row compression happens only on fixed length data types.Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:46:48 GMTvidya_pandehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxThe only reasonably accurate way to estimate those numbers is in your test environment. There are many variables in getting a calculation. Are you storing bits, reals, int, varchars...each compress differentThu, 08 Apr 2010 08:36:37 GMTGregoryFhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxI understand it depends on that data, but i would like do some comparision which may not be accurate but give me an idea of hoe much disk space i will be saving when migrating from 2005 to 2008.need a rough number to measure how much mdf files will be compressed and .BAK files.Thu, 08 Apr 2010 08:32:55 GMTTara-1044200http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxMost of the backups I've seen have had somewhere between 50-80% size reduction. That's just ballpark possible numbers though, as Jeff said, it depends on the Data.The live data... I wouldn't even throw out a guess. If you have a sql 2008 developer or enterprise install to play with, you can use [url=http://sqlblog.com/blogs/paul_nielsen/archive/2008/03/13/whole-database-data-compression-procs.aspx]this script[/url] by Paul Nielsen to estimate the compression savings for your database.Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:30:13 GMTGaradinhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspx[quote][b]Tara-1044200 (4/7/2010)[/b][hr]Can some one please let me know what is the exact % of data and backup files that compressess comparing it to 2005.[/quote]No because, just like a ZIP file, it depends on the data.Wed, 07 Apr 2010 19:18:49 GMTJeff Modenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic899053-391-1.aspxGuys.. I have read that 2008 will compress data in the databases and also backup when compared to 2005. Can some one please let me know what is the exact % of data and backup files that compressess comparing it to 2005.Wed, 07 Apr 2010 15:55:47 GMTTara-1044200