| From: | Ken Caruso <ken(at)ipl31(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Bloat and Slow Vacuum Time on Toast |
| Date: | 2011-07-19 21:00:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAMg8r_qEB6eWBeTNbqnT+61xRT82KzkAXQBbEDduu1m0_byadw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov
> wrote:
> Ken Caruso <ken(at)ipl31(dot)net> wrote:
>
>
> > SELECT SUM(pg_relation_size(pg_class.oid))
> > FROM pg_class ;
>
> Perhaps you want pg_total_relation_size()?
>
> -Kevin
>
The number returned when using pg_total_relation size makes more sense:
346GB. However it looked like pg_class has toast and indexes listed
individually, so I assumed that using pg_total_relation_size would count
values twice, because the total relation size of table would include toast
and indexes, and then they would get counted again when I ran
pg_total_relation_size on the toast and indexes themselves. Is that an
incorrect assumption on my part?
Thanks
-Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-19 21:26:50 | Re: Bloat and Slow Vacuum Time on Toast |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-07-19 20:50:15 | Re: Bloat and Slow Vacuum Time on Toast |