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).
I used sp_spaceused to get table (feature class) disk-space numbers from SQL Server.
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?