On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:09:52 +0100, Lucvdv <replace_name@null.net> wrote:

> I've got a SQL Express database with, right after running DBCC
> SHRINKDATABASE, an MDF file size of 1.59 GB. The log file size is
> neglectable, less than 1 MB.
>
> The database properties say size 1632.50 MB, 159.07 MB available.
>
> When I look at the properties of all tables individually and add their data
> and index sizes, they add up to 590 MB.
>
> What's it using the other 1GB for?

"Andrea Montanari" <andrea.sqlDMO@virgilio.it> wrote in message
news:4v2dmlF1a6iocU1@mid.individual.net...
> hi,
> Lucvdv wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:09:52 +0100, Lucvdv <replace_name@null.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I've got a SQL Express database with, right after running DBCC
>>> SHRINKDATABASE, an MDF file size of 1.59 GB. The log file size is
>>> neglectable, less than 1 MB.
>>>
>>> The database properties say size 1632.50 MB, 159.07 MB available.
>>>
>>> When I look at the properties of all tables individually and add
>>> their data and index sizes, they add up to 590 MB.
>>>
>>> What's it using the other 1GB for?
>>
>> To find out if it could have anything to do with data fragmentation, I
>> backed up that database and restored it under another name, to new
>> mdf and ldf files.
>>
>> No difference: the new version is also 1.59 GB.
>>
>
> actually it can be related with fragmentation.. have a look at
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/sql/2000/maintain/ss2kidbp.mspx
> for some hints about it.. it's based on SQL Server 2000 storage engine but
> 2005 implications are relevant...
> just have a look at http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-gb/library/ms188917.aspx
> for info about sys.dm_db_index_physical_stats instead of DBCC commands...
>
>> I also checked an identical setup at another customer.
>>
>> The database is 547 MB large there, while all tables (data + indexes)
>> add up to 391 MB.
>> So there's a difference there too, but it's much less significant.
>
> again, chances the difference is about fragmentation, as long as
> fillfactor settings and average row size that have to fit the 8060bytes
> boundary...
> --
> Andrea Montanari (Microsoft MVP - SQL Server)
> http://www.asql.biz http://italy.mvps.org
> DbaMgr2k ver 0.20.0 - DbaMgr ver 0.64.0 and further SQL Tools
> --------- remove DMO to reply
>

Lucvdv wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:09:52 +0100, Lucvdv <replace_name@null.net>
> wrote:
>
>> I've got a SQL Express database with, right after running DBCC
>> SHRINKDATABASE, an MDF file size of 1.59 GB. The log file size is
>> neglectable, less than 1 MB.
>>
>> The database properties say size 1632.50 MB, 159.07 MB available.
>>
>> When I look at the properties of all tables individually and add
>> their data and index sizes, they add up to 590 MB.
>>
>> What's it using the other 1GB for?
>
> To find out if it could have anything to do with data fragmentation, I
> backed up that database and restored it under another name, to new
> mdf and ldf files.
>
> No difference: the new version is also 1.59 GB.
>

> I also checked an identical setup at another customer.
>
> The database is 547 MB large there, while all tables (data + indexes)
> add up to 391 MB.
> So there's a difference there too, but it's much less significant.