<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><rss version="2.0" xml:base="https://www.webmaster-forums.net/crss/node/1044437" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title></title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/crss/node/1044437</link>
    <description></description>
    <language>en</language>
          <item>
    <title>Just comared the two db&#039;s</title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/web-database-development/why-would-restored-db-be-smaller-one-backed#comment-1243585</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;Just comared the two db&#039;s more closely in phpmyadmin. There&#039;s an &quot;overhead&quot; column that is significantly larger in the original... in addition to the sizes of the tables being smaller in total.&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 21:02:10 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>aharown07</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1243585 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>Thanks, Greg.
Sounds quite</title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/web-database-development/why-would-restored-db-be-smaller-one-backed#comment-1243584</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;Thanks, Greg.&lt;br /&gt;
Sounds quite possible. I do have a module for optimizing the db and ran it on the original db, but it doesn&#039;t appear to have shrunk any. It&#039;s also supposed to write info to a log and there we nothing there so I&#039;m thinking it didn&#039;t really fly.&lt;br /&gt;
Is there a mysql query I can key in? (I do have phpmyadmin)&lt;br /&gt;
Seems like I read somewhere also that there&#039;s a way to compare two mysql databases and view the difference? Maybe that would confirm your idea.&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>aharown07</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1243584 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  <item>
    <title>My guess would be that that</title>
    <link>https://www.webmaster-forums.net/web-database-development/why-would-restored-db-be-smaller-one-backed#comment-1243577</link>
    <description> &lt;p&gt;My guess would be that that extra 30mb was data that was &quot;deleted&quot; but still in the files. When you backed up the database, it only gives you what is &quot;active&quot;, not the deleted information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;IMO nothing to worry about, think of it like a spiral notebook. You have 70 pages in it. However 30 of them are old things you &quot;deleted&quot; and don&#039;t need. They are there for new data to be written to. This is more efficient than undoing the spiral, pulling out the old page and rebinding it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When you backed it up, it only took the 40 pages of information to your copy machine to make your dump file. When you made a new notebook from the copy, there was only 40 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There is a command to manually optimize the database files, but most systems are set to do it at set intervals for you.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;-Greg&lt;/p&gt;
 </description>
     <pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:38:04 +0000</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Greg K</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">comment 1243577 at https://www.webmaster-forums.net</guid>
  </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
