2011/3/24 Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> 2011/3/23 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>: >>> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 23 17:24:59 -0300 2011: >>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> wrote: >>>> > It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table >>>> > size >>>> > for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having >>>> > pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be >>>> > more >>>> > useful to have the total acquired storage displayed, including implicit >>>> > objects (the mentioned case where it was not very useful atm was a table >>>> > with a big TOAST table). >>>> >>>> I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether >>>> pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different >>>> one. >>> >>> Not including the toast table and index in the size is just plain wrong. >>> Reporting the size without the toast objects is an implementation >>> artifact that should not be done unless explicitely requested. >> >> +1 >> >> can we enhance a detail for table and show more accurate numbers? >> >> table size: xxx >> toast size: xxx >> indexes size: xxx > > Only if we don't mind going beyond 80 columns. >
sure, it is on new lines Pavel > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
