| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
| Date: | 2009-12-21 15:31:33 |
| Message-ID: | 15195.1261409493@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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, or build your own total if you have some other
usage in mind. The one you propose seems fairly arbitrary --- for
example, if it includes the toast relation, why not the toast relation's
index too? It's not like either one is optional from the user's
standpoint.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rafael Martinez | 2009-12-21 15:37:44 | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-21 15:25:34 | Re: Small Bug in GetConflictingVirtualXIDs |