Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of mlcktmguy
mlcktmguyFlag for United States of America

asked on

SQL Server Compression Decision

I am a NUB to SQL Server, developing an Access 2013 back end DB in SQL 14.0 Developer.

I see that it is very easy to implement compression on both tables and indexes to reduce the size of the stored data.

In general I have always stayed away from compression because it adds more overhead in data, creation, retrieval and update.

My uncompressed DB size is about 100GB and we have ample disk space available to store it.  I've gone thru the compression analyzer for some of the larger tables and can see that disk requirements would be reduced by almost 65%.

The question:
Given that we have ample disk space is there any benefit to implementing compression?  If there is not a general rule about  benefit or drawbacks to using compression, what kind of criterion are used to make the decision on a table by table or even index by index level?
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of Ben Personick (Previously QCubed)
Ben Personick (Previously QCubed)
Flag of United States of America image

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
SOLUTION
Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of mlcktmguy

ASKER

Thanks to all for your insight