Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Dimitri Fontaine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
What's practical about pg_relation_size() and pg_total_relation_size() as
of
8.3 is that the diff is the cumulated indexes storage volume. Your proposal
makes it harder to get this information, but sounds good otherwise.
Would it be possible to add in some new APIs to?
a. pg_relation_size()
b. pg_relation_fsm_size()
c. pg_relation_indexes_size()
d. pg_total_relation_size() = a + b + c
You forgot the toast size.
Yeah, pg_total_relation_size() - pg_relation_size() is not equal to the
total size of indexes because of that.
But you can do SUM(pg_relation_size(index)) across all the indexes for that:
SELECT SUM(pg_relation_size(i.oid))
FROM pg_index x
JOIN pg_class c ON c.oid = x.indrelid
JOIN pg_class i ON i.oid = x.indexrelid
WHERE i.relkind = 'i'::"char" AND c.relname='foo';
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
