| From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 18:01:54 |
| Message-ID: | 407d949e0912211001q3cacd5e3j2d2bc7250b04e402@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> 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
>>
>
> Right; that's exactly the way I'm computing things now, I just have to crawl
> way too much catalog data to do it. I also agree that if we provide
> pg_table_size, the issue of "pg_relation_size doesn't do what I want" goes
> away without needing to even change the existing documentation--people don't
> come to that section looking for "relation", they're looking for "table".
>
> Bernd, there's a basic spec if you have time to work on this.
What about, the visibility maps and free space maps?
--
greg
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-21 18:11:25 | Re: Table size does not include toast size |
| Previous Message | Tim Bunce | 2009-12-21 17:45:43 | Re: Minimum perl version supported |