From: | Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
Date: | 2009-12-21 15:51:14 |
Message-ID: | 4B2F9972.7050901@usit.uio.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no> writes:
>> I am probably missing the point here, why is it not supposed to show the
>> size of the table(data) *without* indexes?
>
> Because pg_relation_size is defined at the "physical" level of showing
> one relation, where relation means a pg_class entry. If you want
> agglomerations of multiple relations, you can use
> pg_total_relation_size,
Ok, thanks for the clarification :-)
The 'problem' is that as a developer with advanced knowledge of the
postgres internals, you see a table as a group of relations (toast,
indexes, toast relation's index, etc)
A 'normal' user only sees a table and its indexes and this user
misinterpret the use of the function "pg_relation_size() when it reads
in the documentation "pg_relation_size(): Disk space used by the table
or index ... "
regards,
- --
Rafael Martinez, <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>
Center for Information Technology Services
University of Oslo, Norway
PGP Public Key: http://folk.uio.no/rafael/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFLL5lwBhuKQurGihQRApt1AJ4wQS9+WSiUSAB6sSV6i/z0y0gZhwCfWq1Y
BnnbddNedMMGCUGJ+X4eMMY=
=yUsa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2009-12-21 16:04:58 | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-12-21 15:48:52 | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs |