AnsweredAssumed Answered

Storage consumed in Oracle and SQL Server for geodatabase

Question asked by sherriekubis on Oct 17, 2017
Latest reply on Oct 26, 2017 by vangelo-esristaff

Oracle 12.1   SDE 10.4.2


MS SQL 2016 SP1 

SDE 10.5.0 


As we migrate from Oracle to SQL Server I see that MS SQL takes more storage, but I don't see a pattern.  In one geodatabase Oracle consumed 10GB, SQL Server 15GB.  In our largest geodatabase, Oracle is consuming about 100GB, Sql Server is almost at 200GB and the data is less than half migrated.  That would make it about 5x more in SQL Server.  What am I missing?  I'm not as well versed in SQL Server, but it seems pretty straightforward.  


In either Oracle or SQL Server we don't change DBTUNE and take the defaults.  


Any insights or suggestions are appreciated.