| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |
| Date: | 2017-12-12 15:49:25 |
| Message-ID: | 887.1513093765@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"David G. Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Mariel Cherkassky <
> mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> And the bigger question, Where are the missing 180G ?
> In the toaster probably...
pg_total_relation_size should have counted the toast tables,
as well as the indexes, if memory serves.
What I'm wondering about is the system catalogs, which Mariel's
query explicitly excluded. 180G would be awful darn large for
those, but maybe there's a bloat problem somewhere.
Otherwise, try to identify the largest individual files in the
database directory ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mariel Cherkassky | 2017-12-12 16:22:14 | Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |
| Previous Message | Craig McIlwee | 2017-12-12 15:44:23 | RE: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |