Catalogue Size Difference (1.4 vs. 2.3)

Hi all,
Curious... my 2.3 catalog is 61000 KB but my 1.4 catalog is 80000 KB. Does 2.3 have more efficient way of managing the database or am I missing something... literally and figuratively of course.
Thanks,
LR2.3RC, WinXP SP3, 2.6 Ghz dual core, 2 GB RAM

The preview folders' size, and how it stores previews - and if/how LR removes previews for deleted photos - is an issue unto itself. The size of all one's stored preview files for a catalog can vary greatly, and also depends on your LR preview settings and how many images you view in the library (especially at 1:1).
If LR 2.3RC "does it better" (and there is no concern about orphaned preview files after deleting images), this will be good news, to me for one.

Similar Messages

SQL Server replication and size differences of source and destination databases

I set up snapshot replication for a DB between two SQL instances. On the source instance, the DB shows as 106612.56MB with 34663.75MB as available free space. I expected that the replica would then end up being 71948.81MB (106612.56 - 34663.75
because it wouldn't replicate the white space). The resultant replica database is showing as 35522.94MB. The required data appears to be present in the replicated DB as the SSRS reports that use it are able to find the data they look for. But
why the large discrepancy in size between the source and replicated DB? The replicated DB is less than 1/2 the size of the source DB. I've searched around and can't seem to find any explanation. I realize this isn't mirroring so the DBs will
not be identical in size but I did not expect to see such a large difference between the two. I am replicating all almost all articles (tables, stored procs, etc.) with the exception of a handful of stored procedures and user-defined functions that either
reference invalid column names in a table (vendor bug) or reference another DB that is not present on the replica's instance. I would expect these 4-5 articles can not account for a 37000 MB size difference between the two DBs.
Please note that this has nothing to do with transaction log size. I am specifically talking about the database size and am not looking at the size that combines both DB and TxLog size.
Any insight?

Another factor could be that on the publisher the data is distributed through pages, paragraphs and extents. Depending on your fill factor and the amount of deletes and your datatype, there could be space in the pages, paragraphs and extents which have not
been reclaimed.
During the bcp process which is part of the snapshot application process on the subscriber all the data will be in the tables in a contiguous fashion. I would suspect this would be why you have the difference in space usage.
looking for a book on SQL Server 2008 Administration?
http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-Server-2008-Management-Administration/dp/067233044X looking for a book on SQL Server 2008 Full-Text Search?
http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Full-Text-Search-Server-2008/dp/1430215941

Font Size Difference between Exe and Labview IDE

I'm stumped on the following issue and surprizinglycan't find any references that are similar on this forum.
I've developed an application which, when built to an Exe, has different font sizes than when executed on the same computer in the Labview Integrated Development Environment. In each instance the screen resolution is the same. I've used the "Application Font". I'm having trouble figuring why the font would render differently in each case. Of possible signifigance is that I'm running the Exe by simply browsing to the folder where the build procedure drops it instead of building an installation.
I've attached one of the most glaring examples that shows the rendering in each case.
I'm hoping that someone can point me in the right direction to resolve this issue.
Attachments:
Font Differences1.zip ‏1704 KB

Hi Doctor,
two notes:
for the font size differences: I would try to change the font settings
to a more 'specific' font like Arial 14pt. The application font is set
somewhere in an ini-file and the setting may change with the
environment (IDE vs. exe-rt).
for your attachment: please convert pictures to jpg or png. This will
reduce size by orders of magnitude :-) And please crop them, unless you
have a very (VERY) beautiful desktop background picture!
Best regards,
GerdW
CLAD, using 2009SP1 + LV2011SP1 + LV2014SP1 on WinXP+Win7+cRIO
Kudos are welcome

File size difference between DNG Converter and Lightroom Beta 4

Hi,
I want to go the all-DNG route and am trying several things ATM. I want my files to be as small as possible, thus I disable previews and RAW embedding and enable compression in DNG Converter. In Lightroom, there are no options at all. What I do get, are pretty amazing file size differences:
Original .NEF as it came from my D70s: ~5MB
.DNG created by DNG Converter: ~1MB
.DNG created by Lightroom: ~4MB
The very small file size in DNG Converter is the one that bother's me most. I get these small files from time to time. I checked both the DNG and the NEF in Photoshop, and they seem to be identical. So my question is: What triggers these small file sizes? Do I loose anything? Or is the Lightroom DNG converter not as advanced as the stand alone version?
Maybe this helps: I get the ridicolous small files for very dull subjects that tell the computer scientist in me that it should be easily compressable by common compression algorithms.
Thanks for any pointers,
Markus

Thanks for the hint! It did make me revisit those files and now I see the reason for the small file sizes: The Apple Finder does note update the file size view once a file was added to a folder. Here's what I did:
Opened a folder full of .NEFs in detail view in Finder.
Converted them using DNG Converter
Looked at the sizes of the files as they were shown in the Finder window allready open.
Unfortunately, those file sizes are not correct. If I open a new Finder window of the same folder, file sizes are correctly reported as between 3.5 and 5 MB.

Database size difference.

Hi how can i check the database size difference.
I have one cube , which is about 2GB.
loaded some data to that cube ,want to find how much more it got increased in size ?
is this the right way to check from EAS
Database -> Right click edit -> Properties ->Storage
Add the index size values and Data size values to get the database size.

Yes -- although you should understand that this "raw" number can and will change with a lot of events.
I presume that the reason is so you can get a good feel for how much disk space you need down the road, or backup needs, etc...
If so, then it's good to have a basic understanding of the size so you can predict growth patterns and plan your needs. However, aside from this, there is little to be gained from knowing that the database "grew" by any given amount for any given process. The increase in size can come from fragmentation, for instance (or more accurately, a part of that increase is likely due to additional fragmentation).
Were you looking for something apart from this?

SaveForWeb file size difference of scripted versus manually created

I've got a VB script that uses Save For Web to make thumbnail images from a folder of larger images. Most perplexing is the file size difference of these thumbnails using the script versus making them one by one manually.
The thumbnails are 180x120 pixels. Using Save for Web from the file menu to manually create jpegs (50 quality, optimized, no profile, no progressive) the typical resultant file sizes are 9 to 14 KB. Using the script, the file sizes end up from 20KB to 30KB! Additionally, if the original file has any metadata (caption, contact info, copyright, etc) the manual process strips all the metadata out except the copyright notice, which is fine. Using the script however, all metadata remains intact!!
Can anyone explain why this is occurring? I'd sure like the smallest file size possible. Am I missing a parameter in the ExportSaveForWeb options?
Here's this save section of the code:
     Dim sfwOptions As New ExportOptionsSaveForWeb
     sfwOptions.Format = psJPEGSave
     sfwOptions.Quality = 50
     sfwOptions.Optimized = True
     sfwOptions.IncludeProfile = False
     SaveFile = OutputFolder & ImageNumber & ".jpg"
     docRef.Export SaveFile, PsExportType.psSaveForWeb, sfwOptions
Thanks in advance for any insights and guidance.
(BTW, I get a similar file size disparity with javascript too although they end up a tad smaller than the VB script, go figure...)
Tom
PS - The VB Scripting Guide has the wrong name for the Export Document method. It is not "ExportDocument" but rather, simply "Export". Hopefully this tip will save someone hours and hours of frustration and confusion ;-)

Eureka, I found the issue! Now pass the ********...
In the options in the Save for Web window (the two small gray arrows next to the Preset drop down list), on one of the panels there is a checkbox to Preserve Metadata. This was unchecked. Apparently, it was not seen as unchecked when running the script yet behaved accordingly when I did a manual save. Checking this box and clicking apply, run a manual save, then unchecking the box and clicking apply appeared to "reset" it to not save metadata (other than copyright info) either when saving manually or then using the script.
Case closed.

Size difference between 60GB and 80GB?

Is there a size difference between the 60GB and 80GB iPod with videos? I was looking at a Belkin Tunepower power source for my iPod and it said it has sleeves for 30GB and 60GB iPod videos, but I just checked the Apple store and they only sell 30 and 80 gig iPods. Will my 80GB fit the 60GB sleeve?

Your 80 GB ought to fit the 60 GB case, since the exact dimensions of both iPods are identical:
60 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55 inches
80 GB: 4.1 x 2.4 x 0.55 inches
Of course, if you are using a 30 GB, that would be different, since the 30 GB is a little thinner than the 60 and 80 GB models of Fifth Generations.
-Kylene

JPG file size differences in ACR and PS

Camera: Nikon D80
Photoshop: CS3 Extended v.10.0.1
ACR: version 4.3.1
Saving from ACR, Q=9 -> 1,2Mb
Saving from ACR, Q=10 -> 1,8Mb
PS, Q=11 (no thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb
PS, Q=11 (with thumbnail) -> 3,1Mb (no difference)
PS, Q=12 (no thumbnail) -> 5,8Mb
PS, Q=12 (with thumbnail -> 5,8Mb (no difference)
Save for Web, Q=90: 3,7Mb (larger than PS/11)
Save for Web, Q=100: 5,8Mb (same as PS/12)
1.) Why ACR saves much smaller files?
2.) Why there isn't difference when saving with thumbnail or not?
3.) Why the different methods?
4.) Is any of them better? If yes: why the other? If not: why does it exist?
Saving from ACR produces much smaller files than any other known RAW converter. I've tried Bibble, Lightroom, CaptureNX, DxO and all of them created nearly the same size as Photoshop does. So the most important question: why ACR creates so small JPG files?
Thanks in advance!

Huhh,
the question isn't stupid, just seems a little bit strange in my point of view. But you're right, i must confess. So halfway i am the stupid, not the question (and not the software).
But when i choose 'maximum' in ACR it gives me the 10, and i thought maximum is the maximum. For me it tells about the highest possible quality. There is no value bigger than the maximum.
I've never realize that in PS the way is exactly the same like in ACR! In PS the maximum is 10 too!! I'm always enter the value by the keyboard and never choose a preset. And in PS there's a slider showing the full scale and the entered value, so on that i can see that there's life after the maximum. in ACR the missing slider suggested me that 10 is the top level. But now i've entered 11 and 12 and gave the same sizes as i gave from PS with 11 and 12.
So i can conclude that the GUI of ACR isn't perfect (OK, i *must* now it uses the same engine/values like PS), but the method behind the scenes is perfect, like in PS. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for the very fast answer!

MRP Lot Size Difference

Hi All
In OMI4 ie. MRP lot size procedure i see several MRP lot sizes i.e. EX, WB etc....
But only major difference i find is in terms of scheduling i.e.
Blank (Requirement date = delivery date), 1 (period start = delivery date), & so on i.e. 2, 3, 4
Can anyone tell how it works?????? What is its significance
Example would be very good for me
Please suggest
Rgds

Hi Vicky,
Requirement date = delivery date
Planning or procurement proposal will create on req date
Period start = Delivery date
Planning or procurement proposal will create on period start.
ie, if you use period lot size WB,MB.
WB means weekly lot size ie, on Monday cumulated requirement will create for that week. Same for MB, month end planning proposal will create.
Period End = Delivery date
ie, if you use period lot size WB,MB.
On Saturday cumulated requirement will create for that week if you use WB. Same for MB.
This concept will not work if you use planning time fence.
Regards,
Dharma
Regards,
Dharma

Table size difference?

we have 2 db's called UT & ST.. with same setup and data also same
running on hp-ux itanium 11.23 with same binary 9.2.0.6
one of schema called arb contain only materialised views in both db's and with same name of db link connect to same remote server in both db's...
in that schema of one table called rate has tablesize as 323 mb and st db, has same table rate has 480mb of tablesize, by querying the bytes of dba segement of table i found the difference.. query has follows
In UT db
select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 from dba_segments where segment_name='RATE'
output
323
In ST db
select sum(bytes)/1024/1024 from dba_segments where segment_name='RATE'
output
480mb
its quite strange, both of table, contain same ddl and same counts of records and initalextent and next extents, all storage parameter are same and same uniform size of 160k tablespace with both db..
ddl table of ut enviornment
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLE','RATE','ARB') from dual;
CREATE TABLE "ARB"."RATE"
( "SEQNUM" NUMBER(10,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,---------- ) PCTFREE 10 PCTUSED 40 INITRANS 1 MAXTRANS 255 NOCOMPRESS LOGGING
STORAGE(INITIAL 163840 NEXT 163840 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
TABLESPACE "AB_DATA"
ddl table of st enviornment
CREATE TABLE "ARB"."RATE"
( "SEQNUM" NUMBER(10,0) NOT NULL ENABLE,---------- ) PCTFREE 10 PCTUSED 40 INITRANS 1 MAXTRANS 255 NOCOMPRESS LOGGING
STORAGE(INITIAL 163840 NEXT 163840 MINEXTENTS 1 MAXEXTENTS 2147483645
PCTINCREASE 0 FREELISTS 1 FREELIST GROUPS 1 BUFFER_POOL DEFAULT)
TABLESPACE "AB_DATA"..
tablespace of st db
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLESPACE','AB_DATA') from dual;
CREATE TABLESPACE "AB_DATA" DATAFILE
'/koala_u11/oradata/ORST31/ab_data01ORST31.dbf' SIZE 1598029824 REUSE
LOGGING ONLINE PERMANENT BLOCKSIZE 8192
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 163840 SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT MANUAL
tablespace of ut db
SQL> select dbms_metadata.get_ddl('TABLESPACE','AB_DATA') from dual;
CREATE TABLESPACE "AB_DATA" DATAFILE
'/koala_u11/oradata/ORDV32/ab_data01ORDV32.dbf' SIZE 1048576000 REUSE
LOGGING ONLINE PERMANENT BLOCKSIZE 8192
EXTENT MANAGEMENT LOCAL UNIFORM SIZE 163840 SEGMENT SPACE MANAGEMENT MANUAL
why table size is difference?

If everything is the same as you stated, i would guess the bigger table might have some free blocks. If you truncate the bigger one and insert /*+ append */ into bigger (select * from smaller) then check the size of bigger table, see what you can find. By the way, dba_segments, or dba_extents only gives the usage to extents level granulity, withing a extent, there are blocks might not be fully occupied. In order to get exact bytes of the space, you 'll need to use dbms_space package.
You may get some idear from the extream example I created below :
SQL>create table big (c char(2000));
Table created.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
128               -- my tablespace is LMT uniform sized 128KB
1 row selected.
SQL>begin
SQL> for i in 1..100 loop
SQL> insert into big values ('A');
SQL> end loop;
SQL>end;
SQL>/
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
256               -- 2 extents after loading 100 records, 2KB+ each record
1 row selected.
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>update big set c='B' where rownum=1;
1 row updated.
SQL>delete big where c='A';
99 rows deleted.          -- remove 99 records at the end of extents
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
SQL>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
256               -- same 2 extents 256KB since the HWM is not changed after DELETE
1 row selected.
SQL>select count(*) from big;
COUNT(*)
1               -- however, only 1 record occupies 256KB space(lots of free blocks)
1 row selected.
SQL>insert /*+ append */ into big (select 'A' from dba_objects where rownum<=99);
99 rows created.          -- insert 99 records ABOVE HWM by using /*+ append */ hint
SQL>commit;
Commit complete.
SQL>select count(*) from big;
COUNT(*)
100
1 row selected.
S6UJAZ@dor_f501>select sum(bytes)/1024 kb from user_segments
S6UJAZ@dor_f501>where segment_name='BIG';
KB
512               -- same 100 records, same uniformed extent size, same tablespace LMT, same table
                    -- now takes 512 KB space(twice as much as what it took originally)
1 row selected.

WSUS catalogue size, location and log file

Hi All,
Quick question, where is the catalogue stored in the WSUS server? I am trying to find the size of the latest update synchronization that the client use and the size in total of the catalogue, is this possible? As our clients caused an issue pulling a 35MB
catalogue file from the server, does this seem the correct size for a SCCM/WSUS delta update?
I had a look at WSUS related logs (change and software distribution)but couldn't find the right info, it was a long day so any help appreciated on this as I could simply have missed it in those log files, or a point in the right direction would be great,
thanks for your help
many thanks

Hi,
Have you install SCCM with WSUS? If yes, to get better help, please post your question on the SCCM forum.
https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/systemcenter/en-US/home
Best Regards.
Steven Lee Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and unmark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]

File size differences

Two questions ...
1. I'm getting the following warning ...
I think that a TIFF file bigger than 2 gb does not create any quality issue in LR - PS workflow ... correct?
It is just related with some third party programs, as the warning box says.
2. This file .. an uncompressed TIFF file ... it is 1 gb inside the PS and it is 2.21 gb in the system folder.
Where is this difference coming from?
Thanks ...

So, what is the job of this info panel?
Does it show memory usage for this image?
I don't think so ...
Reference says that ...
"Displays information on the amount of data in the image. The number on the left represents the printing size of the image—approximately the size of the saved, flattened file in Adobe Photoshop format. The number on the right indicates the file’s approximate size including layers and channels."
My file as a PSD file is 1.48 gb in the system folder ... there is also a big difference.
Can anyone clarify this info item?
Thanks ...

IPhoto Library Manager--File Size difference of merged library

I just use iPhoto Library Manager to merge 2 libraries and it worked great. There is a huge difference in the size of the libraries. The original library is 17.48 GB. The merged library which had an additional 4.03 GB of pictures/events added to it is only 11.28 GB. I would have expected 17.48 GB + 4.03 GB to add up to 21.51 GB. Can anyone explain? What has been lost?
Additional info: I get the same 244 events and 4426 pictures whether I open the iPhoto Library or the "Merged Library" through the finder window.
I have iPhoto 7.1.3 and iPLM 3.4.2 installed.

Do you sync your photos with an iPod using iTunes? If so this creates a cache file that can be very large indeed. It would not be carried over in the Merge.
Regards
TD

OSX or Time Capsule? file size differences

So i have my music library on my 500GB time capsule.
i also have it backed up to two different 1TB harddrives (they all report the same amount of files and size)
each 1TB states there are 159.23GB space used by the Music folder with 184 Folders
the 500GB time capsule states: 93.68GB of space used with the same amount of folders.
I did an individual file size check of every folder on each drive using the optcmdI and they all reported the same size.
is there anyway to figure out why this stating differing file sizes?
Time Capsule
1TB drive

I agree that it doesn't make sense, especially that extreme of a difference.
I might be that not all of the data was transferred to the drive with the smaller sized music collection. And just because there are the same amount of folders on each drive does not mean there are the same amount of actual music files in each of those folders.
When copying data, any folders are copied first, then the files within those folders are copied. If your transfer failed for any reason (with or without your knowledge) it was most likely after the folders had been copied but before all the files within those folders had been copied.
I hope that makes sense.
- Mike

Keyboard size difference in 11" and 13" MBA

I plan to purchase a new MBA in the next week or so, to replace my 2010 11" MBA. I love the 11" form factor, but since I do a lot of writing, I'm wondering about the keyboard differences in a 13" MBA. My Apple store is over an hour's drive, so I thought I'd throw this out for those who may already have experience with both models.
Is the 13" model's keyboard substantianlly larger? Does anyone know the measurements of the 13" keyboard vs the 11"? Not the unit's measurements, but just the keyboard area. Has anyone used both for typing and have an opinion?
Any thoughts would be appreciated, thanks in advance.

Just checked the official specs which states that they both have:
"Full-size backlit keyboard with 78 (U.S.) or 79 (ISO) keys, including 12 function keys and 4 arrow keys (inverted “T” arrangement) with ambient light sensor"
I guess this was an improvement over the 11" model I had.

Catalogue Size Difference (1.4 vs. 2.3)

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for