From: | Justin Pitts <justinpitts(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jian Shi <jshi(at)unitrends(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: table size is bigger than expected |
Date: | 2011-08-04 20:17:30 |
Message-ID: | CAMYZu8U0k2DhAazY0xKhfjpCB-DkYgpD6cJy57e_dnaZwxCiTg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Jian Shi <jshi(at)unitrends(dot)com> wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I’m a new user of PostgreSQL. I found one of my tables is taking
> unexpectedly large space:
>
> select
> pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('archive_files'));
>
> pg_size_pretty
>
> ----------------
>
> 1113 MB
>
>
> the field “fname” stores file names without any directory names. In our
> case, each record is expected to take around 300 bytes.
>
> However, this table contains 934829 records, which means each record takes
> about 1.2KB.
>
what does this query yield?
select pg_size_pretty(sum(length(fname))) from archive_files;
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Claire Chang | 2011-08-04 20:27:13 | Postgres 8.4 memory related parameters |
Previous Message | Jian Shi | 2011-08-04 18:56:56 | table size is bigger than expected |