<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Feature Class in File Geodatabase taking Much Less Disk Space than when in SQL Server Geodatabase in Data Management Questions</title>
    <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/feature-class-in-file-geodatabase-taking-much-less/m-p/115722#M6583</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have compared feature-class disk-space usage between file-geodatabase format and SQL Server. I have found disk space used in SQL Server to be about 2.7-3.3 times larger in SQL Server (not including log-file space in SQL Server).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I used &lt;STRONG&gt;sp_spaceused&lt;/STRONG&gt; to get table (feature class) disk-space numbers from SQL Server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why is there such a large difference? I understand that these 2 databases store geometries in different ways. Is the file-geodatabase format super efficient w/ storage?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:16:24 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>IvanBrown</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-07-02T14:16:24Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Feature Class in File Geodatabase taking Much Less Disk Space than when in SQL Server Geodatabase</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/feature-class-in-file-geodatabase-taking-much-less/m-p/115722#M6583</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have compared feature-class disk-space usage between file-geodatabase format and SQL Server. I have found disk space used in SQL Server to be about 2.7-3.3 times larger in SQL Server (not including log-file space in SQL Server).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I used &lt;STRONG&gt;sp_spaceused&lt;/STRONG&gt; to get table (feature class) disk-space numbers from SQL Server.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Why is there such a large difference? I understand that these 2 databases store geometries in different ways. Is the file-geodatabase format super efficient w/ storage?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:16:24 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/feature-class-in-file-geodatabase-taking-much-less/m-p/115722#M6583</guid>
      <dc:creator>IvanBrown</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-07-02T14:16:24Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Feature Class in File Geodatabase taking Much Less Disk Space than when in SQL Server Geodatabase</title>
      <link>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/feature-class-in-file-geodatabase-taking-much-less/m-p/115723#M6584</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I would review this thread from the last few weeks:&amp;nbsp;&lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.esri.com/thread/235224-feature-classes-quadruples-in-size-when-imported-to-sde"&gt;https://community.esri.com/thread/235224-feature-classes-quadruples-in-size-when-imported-to-sde&lt;/A&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/group/1680"&gt;Geodatabase&lt;/A&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;A href="https://community.esri.com/space/2053"&gt;Enterprise GIS&lt;/A&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jul 2019 14:26:17 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.esri.com/t5/data-management-questions/feature-class-in-file-geodatabase-taking-much-less/m-p/115723#M6584</guid>
      <dc:creator>George_Thompson</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-07-02T14:26:17Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

