Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 


 
     
Recent Posts
   
Popular Topics
Home   
Search
    Members    Calendar    Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss Content Posted by Amit Jethva » DATABASE / TABLE SIZE ESTIMATER
Add to briefcase

DATABASE / TABLE SIZE ESTIMATER Expand / Collapse
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
Amit Jethva
Posted Monday, October 01, 2007 5:33 PM


SSC Eights!

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, May 11, 2013 7:18 AM
Points: 847, Visits: 40
Comments posted to this topic are about the item DATABASE / TABLE SIZE ESTIMATER




-- Amit


"There is no 'patch' for stupidity."


Download the Updated SQL Server 2005 Books Online.
Post #405317
msu4web
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:14 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 11:55 AM
Points: 2, Visits: 196

Hi Amit,

Thanks a lot ! But when I executed this procedure its displaying 0 kb for clustered_index_size_in_kbytes, I tried for different tables which actually has clustered indexes but for all its displaying the same. Other than this its calculating all other parameters. I would appreciate your clarification.

Thanks,
Sam.
Post #504037
Hossam AlFraih
Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 11:18 PM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:18 AM
Points: 12, Visits: 74
Hi Amit,

I used the script on one of my tables it gives me about 600 MB for 400,000 records.
I filled that table with "actual" data (400,000 records) and It is only 150 MB!

Note: There were one clustered index (PK) and 4 non-clustered indexes in that table.

Any explanation for this big different?

Thanks
Post #738742
Hossam AlFraih
Posted Wednesday, December 02, 2009 4:58 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, January 27, 2013 12:18 AM
Points: 12, Visits: 74
Hossam AlFraih (6/19/2009)
Hi Amit,

I used the script on one of my tables it gives me about 600 MB for 400,000 records.
I filled that table with "actual" data (400,000 records) and It is only 150 MB!

Note: There were one clustered index (PK) and 4 non-clustered indexes in that table.

Any explanation for this big different?

Thanks


I hope to get a reply very soon.

Thanks
Hossam
Post #827330
Langston Montgomery
Posted Thursday, June 10, 2010 10:29 AM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:55 AM
Points: 37, Visits: 402
Did you enter data that filled all variable length fields completely? Remember: Amit's code estimates the size of the table based on every variable length field being completely filled in. So, if a variable length field is varchar(200), his script will estimate the size based on that field being completely filled with 200 characters versus, let's say, only 10.

Hossam AlFraih (12/2/2009)
Hossam AlFraih (6/19/2009)
Hi Amit,

I used the script on one of my tables it gives me about 600 MB for 400,000 records.
I filled that table with "actual" data (400,000 records) and It is only 150 MB!

Note: There were one clustered index (PK) and 4 non-clustered indexes in that table.

Any explanation for this big different?

Thanks


I hope to get a reply very soon.

Thanks
Hossam
Post #935516
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse

 
 
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use. Report Abuse.