Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable

From: Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(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 16:22:14
Message-ID: CA+t6e1mUrKAmLUzxj_i=qCViVQzuj_FYmJpvTTABWTWA5fyELw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

The system catalogs located in the global directory but the global
directory isnt so big(500K). As I mentioned, the base directory is huge and
the directory 16400 is the biggest inside. I checked some big files inside
the directory 16400 (which represents the commbit database) and for some
there *isnt an object that match* and for some there are. So, How can I
continue ?

2017-12-12 17:49 GMT+02:00 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:

> "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
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-12-12 17:59:31 Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-12-12 15:49:25 Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable