Re: Can't explain db size

have news,
the pg version is 9.1.3
a vaccum full, not a plain vaccum, was performed.
o.s. is red hat 7
filesystem: xfs with block size 4k

could it be a problem regarding the block size?
thanks

2015-12-15 12:11 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla <matteo(dot)grolla(at)gmail(dot)com>:

> Thanks Andreas,
> Il try
>
> 2015-12-15 11:07 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net>:
>
>> Matteo Grolla <matteo(dot)grolla(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > -------Questions----------------
>> >
>> > 1) Can you explain me the big difference between the result in A for
>> table
>> > alf_node_properties: 17GB and the result in B: ~6GB ?
>> >
>> > 2) Can you explain me the difference between the result in B: ~6GB and
>> the
>> > result in C, the sum of all column sizes, 3717MB ?
>>
>> Maybe there are some dead tuples, run a VACUUM FULL (be careful, it
>> requires an explicit lock). And please keep in mind that a table
>> can contains indexes and other objects. A nice explanation and some ways
>> to gather informations on table-, index- and database sizes can you find
>> here:
>>
>> http://andreas.scherbaum.la/blog/archives/282-table-size,-database-size.html
>>
>>
>> Regards, Andreas
>> --
>> Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
>> unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
>> "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
>> Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
>> )
>> To make changes to your subscription:
>> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
>>
>
>