Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

Data Typing Quandry Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:23 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,228, Visits: 1,046
Disapointing and Lame trick question.

The question asked which row had the "largest defined row size", not "the largest storage size".

The answer in the the reference material is for a differant question.
Storage size and defined size are two differant concepts.

The following quote is from the books online section on how to choose between ROW and PAGE compression.

Compression can allow more rows to be stored on a page, but does not change the maximum row size of a table or index.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx

So even though the maximum storage size of the data is less with compression on, the defined maximum row size of the data is not any differant.
Post #1022146
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:29 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:09 AM
Points: 869, Visits: 963
SanDroid (11/17/2010)
Disapointing and Lame trick question.

The question asked which row had the "largest defined row size", not "the largest storage size".

The answer in the the reference material is for a differant question.
Storage size and defined size are two differant concepts.

The following quote is from the books online section on how to choose between ROW and PAGE compression.

Compression can allow more rows to be stored on a page, but does not change the maximum row size of a table or index.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx

So even though the maximum storage size of the data is less with compression on, the defined maximum row size of the data is not any differant.


I was thinking along the same path, although I thought it still was a good question because I did learn something new.
Post #1022151
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:41 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,228, Visits: 1,046
chrs-513176 (11/17/2010)
I was thinking along the same path, although I thought it still was a good question because I did learn something new.


I had already learned the differance between Defined Row size and Storage Row size during my upgrading SQL server skills course.

The differance actually saved us from purchasing a recomended unecessary upgrade for a location.

They were having issues with maxing out the Network during the transfer of a large table that was filled with a lot of un-normalized data. Since the bottle-neck was not in the Disk-IO or the amount of storage being used compression would not have helped. Instead we normalized the data that was being requested from ten large tables joined by an excel formula to one table of just the data being requested using a view.

Creating the view cost less than SQL 2008 Enterprise.
Post #1022156
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:58 AM


Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 7:42 AM
Points: 3,688, Visits: 72,435
SanDroid (11/17/2010)
Disapointing and Lame trick question.

The question asked which row had the "largest defined row size", not "the largest storage size".

Compression can allow more rows to be stored on a page, but does not change the maximum row size of a table or index.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx

So even though the maximum storage size of the data is less with compression on, the defined maximum row size of the data is not any differant.


I agree. I got this wrong for the same reason. The Row Size doesn't change, compression just lets more data be stored on a page.




--Mark Tassin
MCITP - SQL Server DBA
Proud member of the Anti-RBAR alliance.
For help with Performance click this link
For tips on how to post your problems
Post #1022217
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:10 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 5, 2014 2:00 PM
Points: 2,160, Visits: 2,191
mtassin (11/17/2010)
I agree. I got this wrong for the same reason. The Row Size doesn't change, compression just lets more data be stored on a page.


But in this case compression actually makes it so less data fits on a page because of the metadata overhead.
Post #1022273
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:18 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,228, Visits: 1,046
UMG Developer (11/17/2010)
mtassin (11/17/2010)
I agree. I got this wrong for the same reason. The Row Size doesn't change, compression just lets more data be stored on a page.


But in this case compression actually makes it so less data fits on a page because of the metadata overhead.


How does that change that the questioned asked about the "defined row size" not the "storage row size"?

These are differant concepts and alters the answer completely.
Post #1022279
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:19 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 10:58 AM
Points: 5,333, Visits: 25,272
Using SQL 2008 if one creates 4 tables (1 for each of the create statements in the question). Insert the same number of rows into each table, and then executes the procedure:

sp_estimate_data_compression_savings 'dbo', 'Flags1', NULL, NULL, 'ROW' ;

The answer does NOT support the "correct answer", will the questions author please explain why the difference


If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

Ron

Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read

Before posting a performance problem please read
Post #1022281
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:25 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, September 5, 2014 2:00 PM
Points: 2,160, Visits: 2,191
SanDroid (11/17/2010)
UMG Developer (11/17/2010)
mtassin (11/17/2010)
I agree. I got this wrong for the same reason. The Row Size doesn't change, compression just lets more data be stored on a page.


But in this case compression actually makes it so less data fits on a page because of the metadata overhead.


How does that change that the questioned asked about the "defined row size" not the "storage row size"?

These are differant concepts and alters the answer completely.


I couldn't find any definition for "defined row size", do you have a link to a definition? Does it include metadata?
Post #1022286
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 10:48 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, January 31, 2013 8:01 AM
Points: 1,228, Visits: 1,046
UMG Developer (11/17/2010)
[quote]
I couldn't find any definition for "defined row size", do you have a link to a definition? Does it include metadata?


Exactly my point. The term in the question is "defined row size".
Not storage row size or maximum row size.

Compression can allow more rows to be stored on a page, but does not change the maximum row size of a table or index.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx


Also I have noticed that, as has been pointed out by others, the storage concepts in the questions explination may not factual when executed.
Post #1022312
Posted Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:09 PM
Hall of Fame

Hall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of FameHall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, October 16, 2014 11:48 AM
Points: 3,956, Visits: 3,644
SanDroid (11/17/2010)
UMG Developer (11/17/2010)
[quote]
I couldn't find any definition for "defined row size", do you have a link to a definition? Does it include metadata?


Exactly my point. The term in the question is "defined row size".
Not storage row size or maximum row size.

Compression can allow more rows to be stored on a page, but does not change the maximum row size of a table or index.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc280449.aspx


Also I have noticed that, as has been pointed out by others, the storage concepts in the questions explination may not factual when executed.


Yes, I agree with this. Compression has an effect on the storage but does not change the defined row size.
Post #1022388
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse