| From: | Craig McIlwee <craigm(at)q-free(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |
| Date: | 2017-12-12 15:44:23 |
| Message-ID: | DB5PR02MB06939BD6C040664E19305073EE340@DB5PR02MB0693.eurprd02.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Mariel Cherkassky <mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com<mailto:mariel(dot)cherkassky(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
And the bigger question, Where are the missing 180G ?
In the toaster probably...
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/storage-toast.html
Basically large data values are store in another table different than both the main table and indexes.
David J.
The query also says C.relkind <> 'i' which means it’s excluding indexes. Also note that pg_catalog is excluded but LOB data would be stored in pg_catalog.pg_largeobject. That could account for some overlooked space as well.
Craig
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-12-12 15:49:25 | Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2017-12-12 15:21:14 | Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable |