After going thru some tutorials on SQL Server 2008's new feature "SPARSE COLUMN", I have found that it doesn't take any space if the column value is 0 or NULL but when there is a value, it takes 4 times the space a regular(non sparse) column holds.
If my understanding is correct, then why I will go for that at the time of database design? And if I use that, then at what situation will I be?
Also out of curiosity, how does no space get reserved when a column is defined as sparse column (I mean to say, what is the internal implementation for that?)
Storing a null in a sparse column takes up no space at all.
To any external application the column will behave the same
Sparse columns work really well with filtered indexes as you will only want to create an index to deal with the non-empty attributes in the column.
You can create a column set over the sparse columns that returns an xml clip of all of the non-null data from columns covered by the set. The column set behaves like a column itself. Note: you can only have one column set per table.
Change Data Capture and Transactional replication both work, but not the column sets feature.
Downsides
If a sparse column has data in it it will take 4 more bytes than a normal column e.g. even a bit (0.125 bytes normally) is 4.125 bytes and unique identifier rises form 16 bytes to 20 bytes.
Not all data type can be sparse: text, ntext, image, timestamp, user-defined data type, geometry, or geography or varbinray (max) with the FILESTREAM attribute cannot be sparse. (Changed17/5/2009 thanks Alex for spotting the typo)
computed columns can't be sparse (although sparse columns can take part in a calculation in another computed column)
You can't apply rules or have default values.
Sparse columns cannot form part of a clustered index. If you need to do that use a computed column based on the sparse column and create the clustered index on that (which sort of defeats the object).
Merge replication doesn't work.
Data compression doesn't work.
Access (read and write) to sparse columns is more expensive, but I haven't been able to find any exact figures on this.
Reference
A sparse column doesn't use 4x the amount of space to store a value, it uses a (fixed) 4 extra bytes per non-null value. (As you've already stated, a NULL takes 0 space.)
So a non-null value stored in a bit column would be 1 bit + 4 bytes = 4.125 bytes. But if 99% of these are NULL, it is still a net savings.
A non-null value stored in a GUID (UniqueIdentifier) column is 16 bytes + 4 bytes = 20 bytes. So if only 50% of these are NULL, that's still a net savings.
So the "expected savings" depends strongly on what kind of column we're talking about, and your estimate of what ratio will be null vs non-null. Variable width columns (varchars) are probably a little more difficult to predict accurately.
This Books Online Page has a table showing what percentage of different data types would need to be null for you to end up with a benefit.
So when should you use a Sparse Column? When you expect a significant percentage of the rows to have a NULL value. Some examples that come to mind:
You lose 4 bytes not just once per row; but for every cell in the row that is not null.
From SQL SERVER – 2008 – Introduction to SPARSE Columns – Part 2 by Pinal Dave:
You're reading it wrong - it never takes 4x the space.
Specifically, it says 4* (4 bytes, see footnote), not 4x (multiply by 4). The only case where it's exactly 4x the space is a char(4), which would see savings if the NULLs exist more than 64% of the time.
"*The length is equal to the average of the data that is contained in the type, plus 2 or 4 bytes."