db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From anthonyri <anthony.r...@inbox.com>
Subject Re: Database size larger than expected
Date Fri, 21 Oct 2011 22:00:10 GMT

David,

No indexes I am afraid, should have mentioned that, sorry.

Anthony


David Zanter wrote:
> 
> Do you have Indexes on those Tables?
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 5:29 PM, anthonyri <anthony.rich@inbox.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a Derby database with two records, the first has 5000 records (of
>> int, double, double, double, double - so approx 34 bytes per record), the
>> second has 1000 records (of int, varchar(10), varchar(40) - so approx 102
>> bytes per record).
>>
>> 5000 * 34 = 166k
>> 1000 * 102 = 100k
>> Total = 266k (if it was in a text file)
>>
>> What I don't understand is why the database (seg0 folder) is 1.2MB?
>>
>> I have compacted the database using;
>>
>> call SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_INPLACE_COMPRESS_TABLE('APP', 'mapObject', 1, 1,
>> 1);
>> call SYSCS_UTIL.SYSCS_COMPRESS_TABLE('APP', 'MAPOBJECT', 1);
>>
>> Any thoughts please?
>>
>> Anthony
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://old.nabble.com/Database-size-larger-than-expected-tp32699233p32699233.html
>> Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Database-size-larger-than-expected-tp32699233p32699352.html
Sent from the Apache Derby Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Mime
View raw message