Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Data compression


Data compression

Author
Message
Tara-1044200
Tara-1044200
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1032 Visits: 3059
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.
Jeff Moden
Jeff Moden
SSC-Forever
SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)SSC-Forever (45K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 45068 Visits: 39904
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.
Although they tell us that they want it real bad, our primary goal is to ensure that we dont actually give it to them that way.
Although change is inevitable, change for the better is not.
Just because you can do something in PowerShell, doesnt mean you should. Wink

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to post performance problems
Forum FAQs
Garadin
Garadin
SSCommitted
SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)SSCommitted (1.5K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1523 Visits: 4107
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
Tara-1044200
Tara-1044200
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1032 Visits: 3059
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.
GregoryF
GregoryF
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1014 Visits: 885
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!
vidya_pande
vidya_pande
SSC Eights!
SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)SSC Eights! (891 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 891 Visits: 242
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.



Tara-1044200
Tara-1044200
Ten Centuries
Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)Ten Centuries (1K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 1032 Visits: 3059
most of our data is varchar, may be 90%
Stefan_G
Stefan_G
Old Hand
Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)Old Hand (337 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 337 Visits: 953
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
Deepak Kolapkar
Deepak Kolapkar
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)Forum Newbie (9 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 9 Visits: 190
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
Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum

































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search