| From: | Laurenz Albe <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Size of /pgdata |
| Date: | 2026-06-15 06:17:41 |
| Message-ID: | db46ab37a8ca7bcae168ed45e73c4d68908993ab.camel@cybertec.at |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, 2026-06-15 at 06:48 +0530, Raj wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026, 01:00 Laurenz Albe, <laurenz(dot)albe(at)cybertec(dot)at> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2026-06-13 at 12:18 +0530, Raj wrote:
> > > I took one big sample table which is 73GB, and using relfilenode(327683) I tried finding the
> > > underlying file size du -sh 327683* and able to find the total size the files occpuing and
> > > found 113gb.......so for one table itself it is 40Gb additional...
> >
> > Investigate more:
> >
> > - Make sure that you don't get files from another filenode like 3276838.
> >
> > - If the relation (as shown by pg_relation_size('tablename')) is 73GB,
> > it should consist of 327683, 327683.1, 327683.2, ..., 327683.72.
> > Check what additional files there are.
> >
> > - Extra files can be left behind after a crash. Were there any?
>
> No, I am using the command du -ch 327101*
That reply does not make any sense to me.
Yours,
Laurenz Albe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raj | 2026-06-15 08:58:01 | Re: Size of /pgdata |
| Previous Message | Raj | 2026-06-15 01:18:23 | Re: Size of /pgdata |