PPI has occupied less space compared to table without PPI

Database

PPI has occupied less space compared to table without PPI

Hi Techies,

 

Recently I have observed that a table without a PPI (RANGE partition on a date) has taken about 40GB more space than the table with PPI (range parition on a date). 

I have compared the table definitions and the only difference is the PPI.

 

My understanding is the PPI takes additional 2 bytes but the recent findings is driving me nuts, any help much appreciated.

PS: We are on Teradat a16.20 database.

2 REPLIES 2
Teradata Employee

Re: PPI has occupied less space compared to table without PPI

Hi.

 

This may be caused by BLC. The datablocks in the PPI version may take more advantage of the BLC algorithm and the table is more compressed and uses less space.

 

Cheers.

 

Carlos.

Re: PPI has occupied less space compared to table without PPI

Thanks Carlos, could you please share any queries to support it ?

 

It would be great if you could share any documents for reference.