Deleted 99 of 154 columns, yet size of table is still the same?

I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
data in them.
But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
size were still the same.
Is there something I'm missing?
[ Sugapablo ]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]
See DBCC CLEANTABLE in the BOL
"Sugapablo" <russ@.REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.10.51.15.294163@.REMOVEsugapabl o.com...
> I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [
]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com
<--music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net
<--discuss ]
>
|||Try running DBCC UPDATEUSAGE and see if that changes anything.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Sugapablo" <russ@.REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.10.51.15.294163@.REMOVEsugapabl o.com...
>I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [
> ]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com
> <--music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net
> <--discuss ]
>
|||Hi
Just check for DBCC CLEANTABLE in BOL
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en...asp?frame=true
this might help you
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
"Sugapablo" wrote:

> I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [ Sugapablo ]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--discuss ]
>

Deleted 99 of 154 columns, yet size of table is still the same?

I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
data in them.
But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
size were still the same.
Is there something I'm missing?
[ Sugapablo
]
[ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--mu
sic ]
[ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--di
scuss ]See DBCC CLEANTABLE in the BOL
"Sugapablo" <russ@.REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.10.51.15.294163@.REMOVEsugapablo.com...
> I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [
]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com
<--music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net
<--discuss ]
>|||Try running DBCC UPDATEUSAGE and see if that changes anything.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Sugapablo" <russ@.REMOVEsugapablo.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.24.10.51.15.294163@.REMOVEsugapablo.com...
>I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [
> ]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com
> <--music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net
> <--discuss ]
>|||Hi
Just check for DBCC CLEANTABLE in BOL
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/e...asp?frame=true
this might help you
best Regards,
Chandra
http://chanduas.blogspot.com/
http://groups.msn.com/SQLResource/
---
"Sugapablo" wrote:

> I had a table with 154 columns. I dropped 99 of them. Each had a lot of
> data in them.
> But afterwards, when I sp_spaceused TABLENAME, the results in terms of
> size were still the same.
> Is there something I'm missing?
> --
> [ Sugapablo
]
> [ http://www.sugapablo.net <--personal | http://www.sugapablo.com <--
music ]
> [ http://www.2ra.org <--political | http://www.subuse.net <--
discuss ]
>