OL-2000: E-mail Deletion leaves .PST filesize unchanged

[Crazy Horse]

I've been working lately to cleanup my various .PST files and in the
process discovered that deleting e-mails does not change the filesize of
the .PST file.¹ Perusing this newsgroup, I found a thread entry that
suggested using the [Compact now] button in the Advanced Properties
dialogue. However this also did nothing.

I think I've found a workaround: after deleting the e-mails (and then
deleting everything in {Deleted Items}, export the entire contents of
<outlook.pst> into a new file; then, replace <outlook.pst> with that new
file =3F thereby making the new file, the new <outlook.pst>.

While this seems to work, it also seems like a less-than-elegant
solution... *and* there are some drawbacks:
a. perhaps having to reconfigure the view-style of Contacts entries
b. definitely having to reassociate any Contacts subfolders with the
Address Book (and thus, with auto-lookup for contact names)
c. definitely loosing the contents of any Address Book groups.

So, if anyone has a better suggestion on how to "actually" delete e-
mails from the .PST file, I'm all ears.

Thanks in advance.

_________________________________
1. which of course leads to the conclusion that when you delete e-mail,
you're really just hiding their "pointers"

 

[Roady [MVP]]

To what purpose? A pst-file is a database and databases perform better with
some whitespace in them (between 5% and 15% of the total filesize)

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
I've been working lately to cleanup my various .PST files and in the
process discovered that deleting e-mails does not change the filesize of
the .PST file.¹ Perusing this newsgroup, I found a thread entry that
suggested using the [Compact now] button in the Advanced Properties
dialogue. However this also did nothing.

I think I've found a workaround: after deleting the e-mails (and then
deleting everything in {Deleted Items}, export the entire contents of
<outlook.pst> into a new file; then, replace <outlook.pst> with that new
file =3F thereby making the new file, the new <outlook.pst>.

While this seems to work, it also seems like a less-than-elegant
solution... *and* there are some drawbacks:
a. perhaps having to reconfigure the view-style of Contacts entries
b. definitely having to reassociate any Contacts subfolders with the
Address Book (and thus, with auto-lookup for contact names)
c. definitely loosing the contents of any Address Book groups.

So, if anyone has a better suggestion on how to "actually" delete e-
mails from the .PST file, I'm all ears.

Thanks in advance.

_________________________________
1. which of course leads to the conclusion that when you delete e-mail,
you're really just hiding their "pointers"

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

Did you empty the Deleted Items folder before you invoked Compact Now?

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003

and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers


I've been working lately to cleanup my various .PST files and in the
process discovered that deleting e-mails does not change the filesize of
the .PST file.¹ Perusing this newsgroup, I found a thread entry that
suggested using the [Compact now] button in the Advanced Properties
dialogue. However this also did nothing.

I think I've found a workaround: after deleting the e-mails (and then
deleting everything in {Deleted Items}, export the entire contents of
<outlook.pst> into a new file; then, replace <outlook.pst> with that new
file =3F thereby making the new file, the new <outlook.pst>.

While this seems to work, it also seems like a less-than-elegant
solution... *and* there are some drawbacks:
a. perhaps having to reconfigure the view-style of Contacts entries
b. definitely having to reassociate any Contacts subfolders with the
Address Book (and thus, with auto-lookup for contact names)
c. definitely loosing the contents of any Address Book groups.

So, if anyone has a better suggestion on how to "actually" delete e-
mails from the .PST file, I'm all ears.

Thanks in advance.

_________________________________
1. which of course leads to the conclusion that when you delete e-mail,
you're really just hiding their "pointers"

 

[Crazy Horse]

To what purpose? A pst-file is a database and databases perform better with
some whitespace in them (between 5% and 15% of the total filesize)

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
:
[snip]
:

Generally speaking, to save HD space... and also on general principle:
if I delete something, I want to know that it's really deleted -- within
reason.¹

In my case, I don't use auto-archiving. Instead, I archive a calendar
year's worth of e-mails at the end of each year. I've been using OL
since 1998 and now have <1998.pst>...<2006.pst>. I believe that now,
each of these contains only those e-mails that can be seen; i.e.,
they're "clean" from my perspective. I didn't know about the benefits
of "whitespace" so thanks for mentioning that. Still, I won't be going
into these files very often, so I'll trade off the degraded performance
for the diskspace saved.

Thanks for your feedback.
____________________________
1. I read something about some software (in this newsgroup) called, I
think, "Eraser." I may look into that at some point, but for more
generalized security reasons.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Did you empty the Deleted Items folder before you invoked Compact Now?

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
:
[snip]
:

I'm almost completely certain that I did.

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

Well, if you didn't, the file won't compact.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003

and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers

Did you empty the Deleted Items folder before you invoked Compact Now?

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
:
[snip]
:

I'm almost completely certain that I did.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Well, if you didn't, the file won't compact.

Having understood the truth of what you're saying, *prior* to doing the
compacting, I'm pretty sure I emptied {Deleted Items}. However, I can't
say that I have an explicit memory of actually doing that step. So, I
may try and experiment with an archive .PST file that's a pretty good
size. It has e-mail from 2005 thru 2007. I'll search on and then
delete all items prior to 2007. Then I'll delete {Deleted Items} and
then compact the file. I'll let you know what I find.

Thanks for you interest and responses.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Well, if you didn't, the file won't compact.

Having understood the truth of what you're saying, *prior* to doing the
compacting, I'm pretty sure I emptied {Deleted Items}.
:
[snip]
:

Sue-

EGG ON MY FACE!!! Having just attempted my test (on a 145MB .pst file),
and having canceled the compacting after at least 5 minutes of churning,
I'm sufficiently convinced that I must have left out the step of
deleting the contents of {Deleted Items}. While I feel a bit foolish,
I'm glad to find this out, since it'll make my annual archiving routine
easier, vis-à-vis not having to mess around with my Contacts
information. So, come 2008.0101, I'll
a. export everything on or before 2007.1231 into <2007.pst>.
b. search on those same parameters and delete the search results
c. delete the contents of {Deleted Items}
d. Compact the .pst file
e. Use Advanced Properties dialogue to change the description from
[2007] to [2008].

Here's a question:
Does compacting do *more* than simply truly remove the deleted items?
That is, in addition to removing them, does it somehow compact what's
left?

Thanks again for your help.

 

[Sue Mosher [MVP-Outlook]]

Compacting tightens up empty space in the .pst file so that the entire file shrinks.

--
Sue Mosher, Outlook MVP
Author of Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003

and Microsoft Outlook Programming - Jumpstart for
Administrators, Power Users, and Developers

Well, if you didn't, the file won't compact.

Having understood the truth of what you're saying, *prior* to doing the
compacting, I'm pretty sure I emptied {Deleted Items}.
:
[snip]
:

Sue-

EGG ON MY FACE!!! Having just attempted my test (on a 145MB .pst file),
and having canceled the compacting after at least 5 minutes of churning,
I'm sufficiently convinced that I must have left out the step of
deleting the contents of {Deleted Items}. While I feel a bit foolish,
I'm glad to find this out, since it'll make my annual archiving routine
easier, vis-à-vis not having to mess around with my Contacts
information. So, come 2008.0101, I'll
a. export everything on or before 2007.1231 into <2007.pst>.
b. search on those same parameters and delete the search results
c. delete the contents of {Deleted Items}
d. Compact the .pst file
e. Use Advanced Properties dialogue to change the description from
[2007] to [2008].

Here's a question:
Does compacting do *more* than simply truly remove the deleted items?
That is, in addition to removing them, does it somehow compact what's
left?

Thanks again for your help.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Thanks, Sue.

I've got another question about something that's been buggin' me for
awhile. I'll post it in a new thread.

Thanks again.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Brian Tillman]

Generally speaking, to save HD space... and also on general principle:
if I delete something, I want to know that it's really deleted --
within reason.¹

And for a PST, deleting a message form the Deleted Items folder is "within
reason". Disk space allocation is "expensive" on a cimputer. Changing a
few pointers in a file is "cheap".

In my case, I don't use auto-archiving. Instead, I archive a calendar
year's worth of e-mails at the end of each year. I've been using OL
since 1998 and now have <1998.pst>...<2006.pst>. I believe that now,
each of these contains only those e-mails that can be seen; i.e.,
they're "clean" from my perspective. I didn't know about the benefits
of "whitespace" so thanks for mentioning that. Still, I won't be
going into these files very often, so I'll trade off the degraded
performance for the diskspace saved.

If the PSTs are not ones where messages get added and removed with
regularity, there should be no performance issues if you compact them.
Performance issues arise when the data in the PST is changing with some
regularity and you compact the PST frequently.

 

[Brian Tillman]

a. export everything on or before 2007.1231 into <2007.pst>.

Do not export. Move the items to the new PST. Exporting loses data.

Here's a question:
Does compacting do *more* than simply truly remove the deleted items?
That is, in addition to removing them, does it somehow compact what's
left?

It rewrites the PST from the beginning, releasing the extra allocation to
the file system.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Brian-

Thanks for the amplification.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

 

[Crazy Horse]

Brian-

Not that you need confirmation from *me* on this, but I did a little
testing and you're absolutely right about this. You've saved me (I
think¹) from a permanent data loss.

Does MS have a good excuse or rationale for this? Or does anyone else
have an explanation. At first blush, this seems more than a little
outrageous to me. I mean, if you export the contents dbase contents
according to the parameters which match your objective, then it seems to
me once should expect the export to get exactly what you specify --
nothing more; nothing less.

I wonder what gives?!?!

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

It rewrites the PST from the beginning, releasing the extra allocation to
the file system.

Do not export. Move the items to the new PST. Exporting loses data.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1. assuming I can get to some files that are on another computer.

 

[Crazy Horse]

Do not export. Move the items to the new PST. Exporting loses data.

What about *importing* -- does *that* also result in the loss of data?

Thanks.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

You're exporting items and that is exactly what it does. Things that are not
being exported are specific to the pst-file like views, rules and custom
forms.

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----
Brian-

Not that you need confirmation from *me* on this, but I did a little
testing and you're absolutely right about this. You've saved me (I
think¹) from a permanent data loss.

Does MS have a good excuse or rationale for this? Or does anyone else
have an explanation. At first blush, this seems more than a little
outrageous to me. I mean, if you export the contents dbase contents
according to the parameters which match your objective, then it seems to
me once should expect the export to get exactly what you specify --
nothing more; nothing less.

I wonder what gives?!?!

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

It rewrites the PST from the beginning, releasing the extra allocation to
the file system.

Do not export. Move the items to the new PST. Exporting loses data.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1. assuming I can get to some files that are on another computer.

 

[Brian Tillman]

What about *importing* -- does *that* also result in the loss of data?

Certainly.

 

[Crazy Horse]

You're exporting items and that is exactly what it does. Things that are not
being exported are specific to the pst-file like views, rules and custom
forms.

This is somewhat reassuring but . . .

I performed the following test:

SAMPLE 1
» took a multi-year (e.g. 2003-2005) archive and made a copy of it
called "2004a"
» searched 2004a for all e-mails dated before and after 2004
» erased all e-mails found (i.e., dated 2003 and 2005)
» erased the contents of {Deleted Items}
» searched 2004a for all e-mails dated 2004 and noted the number of e-
mails found (FOUND-A).

SAMPLE 2
» took the same multi-year (e.g. 2003-2005) archive and exported all
2004 e-mails to a separate file called "2004b"
» searched 2004b for all e-mails dated 2004 and noted the number of e-
mails found (FOUND-B)

Compared FOUND-A to FOUND-B, noting that FOUND-A > FOUND-B.

I performed this test for several years and on several archives. I
cannot remember the specifics, but in one case, at least, there was a
very significant difference in the number of e-mails found.

I've been messing around with these files for the last couple days and
at this point, it's all starting to get a bit blurry in my mind, which
is to say, I guess I'm less than 100% certain about anything!

In any case, thanks for your help. Much appreciated.

 

[Roady [MVP]]

There is a flaw in this method or at least something you had to check before
exporting if you want to blame the export function;
In sample 2; were the amount of 2004 items found the same as the amount of
2004 items that got exported?

On a personal note; in pretty much any case I would prefer dragging and
dropping items and folders over doing an export since I'm a control freak
when it comes to dealing with email ;-)

--
Robert Sparnaaij [MVP-Outlook]
Coauthor, Configuring Microsoft Outlook 2003


-----

You're exporting items and that is exactly what it does. Things that are
not
being exported are specific to the pst-file like views, rules and custom
forms.

This is somewhat reassuring but . . .

I performed the following test:

SAMPLE 1
» took a multi-year (e.g. 2003-2005) archive and made a copy of it
called "2004a"
» searched 2004a for all e-mails dated before and after 2004
» erased all e-mails found (i.e., dated 2003 and 2005)
» erased the contents of {Deleted Items}
» searched 2004a for all e-mails dated 2004 and noted the number of e-
mails found (FOUND-A).

SAMPLE 2
» took the same multi-year (e.g. 2003-2005) archive and exported all
2004 e-mails to a separate file called "2004b"
» searched 2004b for all e-mails dated 2004 and noted the number of e-
mails found (FOUND-B)

Compared FOUND-A to FOUND-B, noting that FOUND-A > FOUND-B.

I performed this test for several years and on several archives. I
cannot remember the specifics, but in one case, at least, there was a
very significant difference in the number of e-mails found.

I've been messing around with these files for the last couple days and
at this point, it's all starting to get a bit blurry in my mind, which
is to say, I guess I'm less than 100% certain about anything!

In any case, thanks for your help. Much appreciated.

 

[Crazy Horse]

There is a flaw in this method or at least something you had to check before
exporting if you want to blame the export function;
In sample 2; were the amount of 2004 items found the same as the amount of
2004 items that got exported?

You're correct: my methodology was flawed. I never did a search
(according to a specified criteria) for the number of messages to be
exported, prior to doing the export (using that same criteria). Which
is to say that I never did a before and after check. Not too swift on
my part.

Thanks for pointing this out. It could be useful in the future.