Sql-server – the default value of ANSI Padding Enabled, and what should value should I set it to

Initial size is not just 3MB, it is taken from the model database (if not specified during the creation of your user database.) So assuming you haven't specified a initial size during the creation of your user db and you haven't altered the model database file sizes after you have created your userdb you can do the following:

--Create testDB
CREATE DATABASE [TEST_100]
GO


--grow your database file size
ALTER DATABASE [Test] MODIFY FILE ( NAME = N'Test', SIZE = 100MB )
GO


--switch context
USE [TEST_100]
GO



--Find size of modelDB mdf file, this is your initial file size used for the userdb
DECLARE @TargetFileSize int

SELECT  @TargetFileSize = (size * 8 / 1024)
FROM    sys.master_files 
WHERE   database_id = 3 --model database
AND     file_id= 1 --first file is mdf, assuming you have a model with just one mdf. If you have multiple files, change for the one you need to find.


--shrink the the first file of your current database to the target size that you just found.
DBCC SHRINKFILE (1,@TargetFileSize)

EDIT

Okay, some extra info is needed after your edits and comments.

First of all. I feel that the "Initial size" label that you see when you look at the file properties in SSMS is a misnomer. Basically, your intial size is just a concept. It's the first size that is used during creation of the database. You can either explicitly specify this in the CREATE DATABASE statement, or you can have SQL Server implicitly copy it from the model database by ommiting that information during creation.

However, once the database is created, from a DBA perpective there is no such thing as a "initial size" there is only one property visible for a DBA and that is: the actual size. Even the "Initial size" property in SSMS just shows actual size, not the initial size.

Well how come that DBCC SHRINKFILE or DBCC SHRINKDATABASE "know" the initial size then? Even after you have changed the size. Interesting question.

The first page of a dattabase file is the file header page. In there you have, amongst others, 2 properties: size and minsize.

At creation of the file, both file header properties get filled with the inital value:

DBCC TRACEON(3604)
--parameters for DBCC PAGE: (Dbname, fileID, pageID, outputTypeID)
DBCC PAGE('Test_100',1,0,3)with tableresults

Both sizes are in the amount of data pages. In this case. 288 data pages.

Now if I alter the file size:

ALTER DATABASE [test_100] MODIFY FILE ( NAME = N'test', SIZE = 50MB )

You can see that the "size" property is changed to reflect the new size. However, the "MinSize" property still contains the "Initial" size. It's the minimal size to which the shrink command will go.

However, having said all this. I still don't understand why you want to complicate things by first altering the initial size and then shrink to that initial size. Instead of just shrinking directly to a targetsize.

Anyway, to answer your question. The "initial" size is not exposed as a property to the user/dba.

Let's say the new default you want is 5:

DECLARE @sql NVARCHAR(MAX) = N'';

SELECT @sql += N'ALTER TABLE ' + t + ' DROP CONSTRAINT ' + c + ';
  ALTER TABLE ' + t + ' ADD CONSTRAINT ' + c 
  + ' DEFAULT (5) FOR [project_id];'
FROM
(
  SELECT t = QUOTENAME(s.name) + '.' + QUOTENAME(t.name), 
    c = QUOTENAME(d.name)
  FROM sys.tables AS t
  INNER JOIN sys.schemas AS s
  ON t.[schema_id] = s.[schema_id]
  INNER JOIN sys.columns AS c
  ON t.[object_id] = c.[object_id]
  INNER JOIN sys.default_constraints AS d
  ON d.parent_object_id = t.[object_id]
  AND d.parent_column_id = c.column_id
  WHERE c.name = N'project_id'
) AS x;

PRINT @sql;
--EXEC sp_executesql @sql;

Notes:

1. print is limited to 8K, so if you have a lot of tables with this column, you might not actually see the entire command output in SSMS, and it may look truncated.
2. This will only add the constraint to project_id columns that already have a default constraint. If you have other tables that have this column but don't currently have a constraint, you'll need a separate query.
3. This will not change the values already generated based on the old defaults.

Here is why I recommend against INFORMATION_SCHEMA for this type of problem:

• https://sqlblog.org/2011/11/03/the-case-against-information_schema-views