On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 6:34 PM, Ted Rolle, Jr. <ster...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Back in the olden days we predicted a database's storage to be about 5 > times the size of the data. > By 'olden' I mean IBM's IMS, VSAM, DB2. ..., 70s, 80s. > I hope this is still not the case... > A lot depends on your data, of course. But the Fossil <http://www.fossil-scm.org/> repository (an SQLite database) that holds the complete 12.5 year revision history of SQLite is about 69.4% efficient at holding data overall (meaning that the content held is about 69.4% of the total database size, and about 82.8% efficient if you exclude indices. That is a lot better than your 20% rule-of-thumb. On the other hand, you can make the overall storage efficiency as small as you want by creating enough useless indices... You can measure the storage efficiency of your on SQLite databases using sqlite3_analyzer.exe binary available on the download page<http://www.sqlite.org/download.html> . > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users > -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
