From: | Alban Hertroys <haramrae(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | rod <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> |
Cc: | jaime(dot)soler(at)gmail(dot)com, Rajagopal NS <rajagopal(dot)ns(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Installation Size showing huge size in postgres installed on windows os |
Date: | 2015-03-19 15:36:42 |
Message-ID: | CAF-3MvP_XpfJFYkmdF7dfOFMHzDr+h0jZ+qYYtE-i_68y4Q3_g@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On 19 March 2015 at 13:44, Raymond O'Donnell <rod(at)iol(dot)ie> wrote:
> On 19/03/2015 12:39, jaime soler wrote:
>> El mié, 18-03-2015 a las 23:05 -0700, Rajagopal NS escribió:
>>> I have installed Postgres 9.0 in my machine. When I look at Programs and
>>> Features under Control Panel,
>>> I see the Size for Postgres 9.0 is shown as 121GB.
>>>
>>> I feel neither the installation or the small postgres databases I would have
>>> created use 121GB.
For what it's worth, I've seen the wildest claims about installation
sizes in that panel. Mostly the installation size is severely
underestimated, but overestimates happen too - haven't seen anything
this bad though. I stopped trusting those numbers quite a while ago.
The reliable method is to check the directory size of your catalog
directories and the Postgres installation directory yourself.
--
If you can't see the forest for the trees,
Cut the trees and you'll see there is no forest.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Leonardo M. Ramé | 2015-03-19 15:43:09 | Sequences not created, bug in pg_dump? |
Previous Message | Samuel Smith | 2015-03-19 13:06:30 | Re: Archeiving and Purging |