|From:||Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>|
|Cc:||Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, mathias(at)brossard(dot)org, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
pá 15. 2. 2019 v 7:50 odesílatel Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
> Hi Pavel,
> Thanks for updating the patch.
> On 2019/02/08 17:26, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > I renamed originally calculated column "size" to "direct partitions size"
> > .. see Alvaro's comment. Then I introduced new column "total partitions
> > size" that is calculated like you propose.
> > Now the result of dPn+ looks like
> > List of partitioned relations
> > │ Schema │ Name │ Owner │ Parent name │ Direct partitions size │ Total
> > partitions size │ Description │
> > │ public │ p │ pavel │ │ 8192 bytes │ 24
> > kB │ │
> > │ public │ p_1 │ pavel │ p │ 8192 bytes │ 16
> > kB │ │
> > │ public │ p_1_bc │ pavel │ p_1 │ 8192 bytes │ 8192
> > bytes │ │
> > (3 rows)
> OK, so for each listed partitioned table (root and nested), this shows the
> total size of the directly attached leaf partitions *and* the total size
> of all partitions in its (sub-) tree.
> By the way, what I think Alvaro meant by "local size" is not what the
> "direct partition size" above shows. I think "local size" means the size
> of the storage assigned to the table itself, not to partitions attached to
> it, which are distinct relations. We don't implement that concept in
> Postgres today, but may in the future. I'm not sure if we'll add a
> another column to show "local size" in the future when we do implement
> that concept or if Alvaro meant that there should only be "local size"
> (not "direct partition size") which will always show 0 for now and "total
> partition size" columns.
We can do it in future. Now, I don't think so is good to show 0 always. The
psql reports (like this) can be enhanced or changed in future without
problems, so we don't need to design all now.
> Anyway, I have a few more suggestions to improve the patch, but instead of
> sending the minute-level changes in the email, I've gone ahead and made
> those changes myself. I've attached a delta patch that applies on top of
> your v9 patch. Summary of the changes I made is as follows:
> * Documentation rewording here and there (also mentioned the "direct
> partitions size" and "total partitions size" division in the \dPn output
> per the latest patch)
> * Wrapped some lines in code so that they don't look too wide
> * Renamed show_nested_partitions to show_nested
> * Changed "Partitioned relations" in the output headers to say
> "Partitioned tables" where appropriate
> * Fixed quiet mode output to use correct word between object_name vs
> Please merge these changes if you think they are reasonable.
I like your changes. I merged all - updated patch is attached
Thank you very much
|Next Message||Jeff Janes||2019-02-16 22:07:44||Re: TupleTableSlot abstraction|
|Previous Message||Noah Misch||2019-02-16 21:40:23||Re: Synchronize with imath upstream|