| From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:02:02 |
| Message-ID: | 4B2FAA0A.1040208@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2009-12-21 17:26:16 | Re: Streaming replication and non-blocking I/O |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-12-21 16:54:06 | Re: Table size does not include toast size |