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

Data compression Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2010 3:55 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: Thursday, January 9, 2014 7:44 AM
Points: 988, Visits: 2,945
Guys.. 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.
Post #899053
Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:18 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 9:38 AM
Points: 36,726, Visits: 31,176
Tara-1044200 (4/7/2010)
Can some one please let me know what is the exact % of data and backup files that compressess comparing it to 2005.


No because, just like a ZIP file, it depends on the data.


--Jeff Moden
"RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for "Row-By-Agonizing-Row".

First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
Stop thinking about what you want to do to a row... think, instead, of what you want to do to a column."

(play on words) "Just because you CAN do something in T-SQL, doesn't mean you SHOULDN'T." --22 Aug 2013

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Post #899189
Posted Wednesday, April 7, 2010 7:30 PM


SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:38 AM
Points: 1,525, Visits: 4,071
Most 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 this script by Paul Nielsen to estimate the compression savings for your database.


Seth Phelabaum
Consistency is only a virtue if you're not a screwup.

Links: How to Post Sample Data :: Running Totals :: Tally Table :: Cross Tabs/Pivots :: String Concatenation
Post #899195
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:32 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: Thursday, January 9, 2014 7:44 AM
Points: 988, Visits: 2,945
I 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.
Post #899620
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:36 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:56 AM
Points: 1,002, Visits: 884
The 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 different

/* ----------------------------- */
Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!

Post #899628
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2010 8:46 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: Sunday, May 11, 2014 8:07 PM
Points: 891, Visits: 235
Regarding 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.



Post #899642
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2010 9:02 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: Thursday, January 9, 2014 7:44 AM
Points: 988, Visits: 2,945
most of our data is varchar, may be 90%
Post #899665
Posted Thursday, April 8, 2010 10:41 AM


Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, November 26, 2013 8:40 AM
Points: 316, Visits: 908
The only way to know how much compression you would actually get is to actually try it on your data.

Install SQL 2008 developer somewhere

Import 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%.

/SG
Post #899788
Posted Thursday, November 8, 2012 4:17 PM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 24, 2014 3:29 PM
Points: 9, Visits: 189
Hi

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?

Thanks
Post #1382758
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse