From: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andy Hartman <hartman60home(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: DB Files |
Date: | 2024-11-15 15:47:41 |
Message-ID: | 3266a0a3-4de9-4214-8c4d-dd99b9074e40@aklaver.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 11/15/24 06:27, Andy Hartman wrote:
> I created a new table (V16) and then used SimplySql to take data from
> mssql to the new Postgres table. The table is 212gig in size. Myquestion
> comes from the files created on the OS(Windows2022 server) I can see
> lots of files with the last being:
>
> 2474695.143
>
> They are all 1,048,576kb
>
> Is this normal behaviour and could I have done something to use fewer
> files and larger ones?
Read:
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/storage-file-layout.html
[...]
"When a table or index exceeds 1 GB, it is divided into gigabyte-sized
segments. The first segment's file name is the same as the filenode;
subsequent segments are named filenode.1, filenode.2, etc. This
arrangement avoids problems on platforms that have file size
limitations. (Actually, 1 GB is just the default segment size. The
segment size can be adjusted using the configuration option
--with-segsize when building PostgreSQL.) In principle, free space map
and visibility map forks could require multiple segments as well, though
this is unlikely to happen in practice."
[...]
>
>
> This table is created in a separate tablespace on a dedicated drive on
> the windows file system.
>
> I'm just getting involved in this PostgreSql instance
>
> THanks.
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adrian Klaver | 2024-11-15 15:48:10 | Re: Retrieve filename within a script |
Previous Message | Torsten Förtsch | 2024-11-15 15:28:06 | Re: Validating check constraints without a table scan? |