MDF file size much larger than actual data

For some reason my MDF file is 154gigs, however, I only loaded 7 gigs worth of data from flat files. Why is the MDF file so much larger than the actual source data?

More开发者_高级运维 info:

Only a few tables with ~25 million rows. No large varchar fields (biggest is 300, most are less than varchar(50). Not very wide tables < 20 columns. Also, none of the large tables are indexed yet. Tables with indexes have less than 1 million rows. I don't use char, only varchar for strings. Datatype is not the issue.

Turned out it was the log file, not the mdf file. The MDF file is actually 24gigs which seems more reasonable, however still big IMHO.

UPDATE:

I fixed the problem with the LDF (log) file by changing the recovery model from FULL to simple. This is okay because this server is only used for internal development and ETL processing. In addition, before changing to SIMPLE I had to shrink the LOG file. Shrinking is not recommended in most cases, however, this was one of those cases where the log file should have never grown so big and so fast. For further reading see this

Could be a lot of reasons maybe you are using char(5000) instead of varchar(5000), maybe you are using bigints instead of int, nvarchar when all you need is varchar etc etc etc. Maybe you are using a lot of indexes per table, these will all add up. Maybe your autogrow settings are wrong. You are sure this is the MDF and not the LDF file right?

Because the MDF was allocated with 154Gb, or has grown to 154Gb through various operations. A database file has at least the size of the data in it, but it can be larger than the used amount by any amount.

An obvious question will be how do you measure the amount of data in the database? Did you use sp_spaceused? Did you check sys.allocation_units? Did you guess?

If the used size is indeed 7Gb out of 154Gb, then you should leave it as it is. The database was sized by somebody at this size, or has grown, and it is likely to grow back. If you believe that the growth or pre-sizing was accidental, then the previous point still applies and you should leave it as is.

If you are absolutely positive the overallocation is a mistake, you can shrink the database, with all the negative consequences of shrinking.

Just in case this is useful for someone out there, found this query in dba.stackexchange, it uses the sys.dm_db_database_page_allocations which counts the number of pages per object, this includes internal storage and gives you a real overview of the spaced used by your database.

SELECT sch.[name], obj.[name], ISNULL(obj.[type_desc], N'TOTAL:') AS [type_desc],
       COUNT(*) AS [ReservedPages],
       (COUNT(*) * 8) AS [ReservedKB],
       (COUNT(*) * 8) / 1024.0 AS [ReservedMB],
       (COUNT(*) * 8) / 1024.0 / 1024.0 AS [ReservedGB]
FROM sys.dm_db_database_page_allocations(DB_ID(), NULL, NULL, NULL, DEFAULT) pa
INNER JOIN sys.all_objects obj
        ON obj.[object_id] = pa.[object_id]
INNER JOIN sys.schemas sch
        ON sch.[schema_id] = obj.[schema_id]
GROUP BY GROUPING SETS ((sch.[name], obj.[name], obj.[type_desc]), ())
ORDER BY [ReservedPages] DESC;

Thanks to Solomon Rutzky:

https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/175649/sum-of-table-sizes-dont-match-with-mdf-size

Either AUTO SHRINK is not enabled or The initial size was set to the larger value.