Wouldn't this be due to SQLite storing everything as strings? If your database is predominantly numbers then I imagine the differences between Access and SQLite could be huge.
Steve -----Original Message----- From: Roy Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 April 2004 04:38 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Fw: [sqlite] A proposal for SQLite version 3.0 I have no clue how Jakub Adamek gets 3x bigger files than MS Access. I always get 2x less. ----- Original Message ----- From: "D. Richard Hipp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakub Adamek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 9:10 AM Subject: Re: [sqlite] A proposal for SQLite version 3.0 Jakub Adamek wrote: > My experience is that SQLite makes roughly about 3x bigger files than MS > Access. How would this change in 3.0? > SQLite is very storage efficient in the common case. In a typical table, SQLite will use about 4 or 5 bytes of disk space for every 3 bytes of actual data stored. Put another way, about 60% to 75% of an SQLite database file is the actual data being stored and the other 40% to 25% is overhead. If you have an example where the overhead is significantly larger than this, I'd be interested in seeing it. The new version 3.0 file format is anticipated to reduce overhead by about 5%. YMMV, of course. -- D. Richard Hipp -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 704.948.4565 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
