Recently I became interested, - Are the data, bulk loaded in the table with
LOAD utility, consume the same disk space as loaded with IMPORT utility? The
answer turned out to be NOT !

Here is a nutshell description of the test. The testing was done at
"DB2/LINUX 8.2.3".

Tables for tests:
F4106 has 5203 rows, 32 columns.
F42199 has 1399252 rows, 245 columns.

Load command:
load client from '/home/share/tabXXXX.ixf' of ixf insert into
proddta.fXXXX NONRECOVERABLE"
Import command:
import from '/home/share/tabXXXX.ixf' of ixf insert into proddta.fXXXX

Between loads I used the following commands to truncate a table under
investigation and clear statistics:

ALTER TABLE PRODDTA.fXXXX ACTIVATE NOT LOGGED INITIALLY WITH EMPTY
TABLE;
RUNSTATS on table PRODDTA.fXXXX

After load I used the same RUNSTATS as above to get the "used pages"
counter (npages) in syscat.tables.

Here are the results:

syscat.tables, npages:
----------------------
TABLE IMPORT LOAD
------- --------- -------
F4106 372 401
F42199 694862 700326

One can see the disk space occupied by data, loaded with LOAD utility is
slightly greater then its counterpart.

If anybody understand this, please, explain.

Cheers,
--
Konstantin Andreev.