From: | Aleksey Tsalolikhin <atsaloli(dot)tech(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | database is bigger after dump/restore - why? (60 GB to 109 GB) |
Date: | 2011-02-22 20:44:53 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTikiMvuqdkYxim81FrHe2PX7a=2UJu80ed-fACOD@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Hi. Last week our 60 GB database (per psql \l+) was (re-)replicated to
the DR site using SlonyI, and arrived 109 GB in size which caused a
problem as it filled up the filesystem on the DR server - we expected the
DR database to be the same size. Mystery.
Now just past weekend we upgraded our production server by pg_dump
and pg_restore, and again the database is 109 GB in size!
Most of our data is in a single table, which on the old server is 50 GB in
size and on the new server is 100 GB in size.
Could you please help us understand why a COPY of the data into a new
database (whether DR or the new server) results in different disk usage?
Somebody mentioned on the Slony users list that there is a kind of padding
that goes in that actually helps performance.
Is there a way to track disk usage MINUS the padding?
Thanks,
Aleksey
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-22 21:18:43 | Re: How to extract a value from a record using attnum or attname? |
Previous Message | Igor Neyman | 2011-02-22 20:28:32 | Re: why is there no TRIGGER ON SELECT ? |