From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Goldner <mgoldner(at)agmednet(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Database size with large objects |
Date: | 2007-11-05 13:57:44 |
Message-ID: | 18363.1194271064@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Michael Goldner <mgoldner(at)agmednet(dot)com> writes:
> On 11/5/07 12:19 AM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> It might be interesting to look at stats such as
>> select sum(length(data)) from pg_largeobject;
>> to confirm that your 100GB estimate for the data payload is accurate.
> That select returns the following:
> image=# select sum(length(data)) from pg_largeobject;
> sum
> --------------
> 215040008847
> (1 row)
Hmm, so given that you had 34803136 pages in pg_largeobject, that works
out to just about 75% fill factor. That is to say, you're only getting
3 2K rows per page and not 4. If the rows were full-size then 4 would
obviously not fit (there is some overhead...) but the normal expectation
in pg_largeobject is that tuple compression will shave enough space to
make up for the overhead and let you get 4 rows per page. Are your
large objects mostly pre-compressed data?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-05 15:42:06 | Re: Error Migrating From 7.4 to 8.2.5 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-11-05 13:26:30 | Re: Error Migrating From 7.4 to 8.2.5 |