Subject | Gbaked and restored database larger than the original? |
---|---|
Author | Tomasz Tyrakowski |
Post date | 2015-07-08T09:48:19Z |
Hi,
Just for my cursiosity and for a better understanding of Firebird: what
can be a possible reason for a gbaked and restored (to a different file)
database being _larger_ than the original one?
I've got a db of size 104521728 bytes. I do gbak -B -T database.fdb
database.gbk, then gbak -C database.gbk newdatabase.fdb. The size of
newdatabase.fdb is 104751104 (~ 200kB more).
I'm the only one messing with these databases, the platform is Linux
x64, Firebird 2.5.2, all operations performed on the same machine, in
the same file system. Before the backup-restore, a quite large chunk of
metadata was added/altered in the original database (procedures,
fields), which is the only clue I can think of at the moment (adding a
default value to a field which had none?).
It's quite obvious why a restored database might be smaller than the
original one (no garbage), but the other way around is a bit puzzling.
Both databases seem to work fine, so I'm in no trouble, but my ignorance
in this matter bothers me nonetheless ;)
I'd be grateful for any plausible explanations.
thanks in advance and best regards
Tomasz
Just for my cursiosity and for a better understanding of Firebird: what
can be a possible reason for a gbaked and restored (to a different file)
database being _larger_ than the original one?
I've got a db of size 104521728 bytes. I do gbak -B -T database.fdb
database.gbk, then gbak -C database.gbk newdatabase.fdb. The size of
newdatabase.fdb is 104751104 (~ 200kB more).
I'm the only one messing with these databases, the platform is Linux
x64, Firebird 2.5.2, all operations performed on the same machine, in
the same file system. Before the backup-restore, a quite large chunk of
metadata was added/altered in the original database (procedures,
fields), which is the only clue I can think of at the moment (adding a
default value to a field which had none?).
It's quite obvious why a restored database might be smaller than the
original one (no garbage), but the other way around is a bit puzzling.
Both databases seem to work fine, so I'm in no trouble, but my ignorance
in this matter bothers me nonetheless ;)
I'd be grateful for any plausible explanations.
thanks in advance and best regards
Tomasz