From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Date: | 2018-06-01 15:15:33 |
Message-ID: | CAFjFpRcw8F=c3424Tp4pe072uPh8607v5eG+dbvrYa4SsV5-pA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 12:56 AM, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> postgres=# SELECT count(*) from data;
> ┌─────────┐
> │ count │
> ╞═════════╡
> │ 1000000 │
> └─────────┘
> (1 row)
>
> \dt+ can display actual size of partitioned table data - now zero is
> displayed
>
> postgres=# \dt+ data
> List of relations
> ┌────────┬──────┬───────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────────┐
> │ Schema │ Name │ Type │ Owner │ Size │ Description │
> ╞════════╪══════╪═══════╪═══════╪═════════╪═════════════╡
> │ public │ data │ table │ pavel │ 0 bytes │ │
> └────────┴──────┴───────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────────┘
> (1 row)
I think we should at least display "Type" as "partitioned table" for a
partitioned table, so that it's easy to understand why the size is 0;
partitioned tables do not hold any data by themselves.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2018-06-01 15:21:52 | Re: ToDo: show size of partitioned table |
Previous Message | Steven Winfield | 2018-06-01 15:12:02 | RE: FW: Possible optimisation: push down SORT and LIMIT nodes |