SQL Server 2005

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss content posted by Vinay Thakur » SQL Server 2005

SQL Server 2005

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

Vinay Thakur-585143

Posted Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:35 PM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 4:05 PM
Points: 1,514, Visits: 720

Comments posted to this topic are about the item SQL Server 2005

Thanx.
Vinay

http://rdbmsexperts.com/Blogs/
http://vinay-thakur.spaces.live.com/
http://twitter.com/ThakurVinay

Post #770668

Joy Smith San

Posted Thursday, August 13, 2009 11:40 PM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:13 AM
Points: 1,371, Visits: 2,299

Thanks. To be frank I was not aware about it.
And I have never seen anybody using it as well.

Post #770689

Davide Lonardoni

Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 6:18 AM

SSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 14, 2013 2:59 AM
Points: 289, Visits: 110

And according to BOL is already obsolete. Btw anybody find it useful?

Post #770832

SA-1

Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 7:35 AM

Ten Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, May 02, 2013 7:35 AM
Points: 1,140, Visits: 933

I didn't realize that it was already obsolete up until now. I have tested this for a very large DW and have seen significant disk space savings.

Post #770893

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

Posted Friday, August 14, 2009 7:58 AM

SSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:26 PM
Points: 31,425, Visits: 13,738

It was introduced for data warehouses and cubes, offering savings if you store significant amounts of decimal data.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help

Post #770931

hakan.winther

Posted Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:24 AM

SSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 06, 2013 5:31 AM
Points: 2,226, Visits: 438

I found it usefull in a large database on a server with many CPU:s and I/0 bottleneck, but now we have replaced it with table compression in SQL server 2008, and it is much more usefull. (We have 4 quad processors :) )

/Håkan Winther
MCITP:Database Developer 2008

Post #771616

L' Eomot Inversé

Posted Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:53 AM

SSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:07 PM
Points: 7,096, Visits: 7,156

It's hard to understand why MS introduced this storage format - perhaps they hadn't yet decided to provide table compression in the next version when they did this (although one would thing SQL2008 was in a pretty advanced stage by the time SQL2005 SP2 content was defined). Using a long format + compression (store the affected tables on a compressed partition in older or less facility-rich SQLServer versions ; use SQL table compression if you have the right SQL version) is going to be far cleaner and give greater savings almost always. Of course if you have a very large very sparse matrix of decimal values, and want to store it in fully expanded form (ie as if it were not sparse) in a table it's possible that vardecimal might do as well as or maybe even better than compression, but (a) I think it's unlikely that vardecimal actually would do better and (b) I really can't imagine anyone wanting to do that.

Tom
Que conclure à la fin de tous mes longs propos? C'est que les préjugés sont la raison des sots. (Voltaire, 1756)

Post #809865

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Permissions