| From: | Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chander Ganesan <chander(at)otg-nc(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ivan Sergio Borgonovo <mail(at)webthatworks(dot)it>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: backup getting larger and larger |
| Date: | 2009-04-15 15:40:04 |
| Message-ID: | 49E5FFD4.2060105@pinpointresearch.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Chander Ganesan wrote:
> Steve Crawford wrote:
>> Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:
>>> I still have to investigate if the tables are getting really
>>> larger...
>> Can we assume that by backup you mean pg_dump/pg_dumpall? If so, then
>> the change is likely due to increasing data in the database. I have a
>> daily report that emails me a crude but useful estimate of table
>> utilization based on this query:
>> ...
> The better way to do this would likely be to use the pg_*_size
> functions detailed here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/static/functions-admin.html#FUNCTIONS-ADMIN-DBSIZE
>
>
> In particular pg_total_relation_size() , |pg_size_pretty|(), and the
> like... Seems much more straightforward than the queries mentioned
> above..
>
You are, of course, correct. That is a better choice if you are up-to-date.
Unfortunately I still have some lingering servers that haven't been
upgraded to a version that includes that functionality (and I know I'm
not alone...) :)
Cheers,
Steve
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-04-15 15:55:31 | Re: need information |
| Previous Message | Adrian Klaver | 2009-04-15 15:39:07 | Re: Trigger error |