This is so good to hear! The advances in database theory and practice have put the old ideas to rest.
Hooray for today! Ted On 09/01/2012 07:08 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
