From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>, Rafael Martinez <r(dot)m(dot)guerrero(at)usit(dot)uio(dot)no>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
Date: | 2009-12-21 16:54:06 |
Message-ID: | 16681.1261414446@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> To answer Rafael's concerns directly: you're right that this is
> confusing. pg_relation_size is always going to do what it does right
> now just because of how that fits into the design of the database.
> However, the documentation should be updated to warn against the issue
> with TOAST here. And it should be easier to get the total you're like
> to see here: main relation + toasted parts, since that's what most DBAs
> want in this area.
Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
pg_total_relation_size
I think the 8.4 documentation already makes it apparent that
pg_relation_size is a pretty low-level number. If we invent other
functions with obvious names, that should be sufficient.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-21 17:02:02 | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2009-12-21 16:30:31 | Re: Table size does not include toast size |