Bruce Momjian wrote:
Dave Page wrote:
pg_relation_size(text) - Get relation size by name/schema.name
pg_relation_size(oid) - Get relation size by OID
pg_tablespace_size(name) - Get tablespace size by name
pg_tablespace_size(oid) - Get tablespace size by OID
pg_database_size(name) - Get database size by name
pg_database_size(oid) - Get database size by OID
pg_table_size(text) - Get table size (including all indexes and
toast tables) by name/schema.name
pg_table_size(oid) - Get table size (including all indexes and
toast tables) by OID
pg_size_pretty(int8) - Pretty print (and round) the byte size
specified (eg, 123456 = 121KB)
OK, so you went with relation as heap/index/toast only, and table as the
total of them. I am not sure that makes sense because we usually equate
relation with table, and an index isn't a relation, really.
Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are
indexes/toasts even objects?
Relation is not an ideal names, but I heard people talk about heap relation
and index relation. Indexes and tables (and sequences) are treated in a
similar way quite often. Think of ALTER TABLE example_index RENAME TO
another_index. This is even less obvious. Of course in relational theory,
an index would not be a relation, because an index is just implementation
detail.
I don't like object_size any better, since that makes me rather think of
large objects or rows as objects (object id...).
Perhaps pg_table_size should be split into pg_table_size and
pg_indexes_size, where pg_indexes_size is the aggregate of all indexes on a
table und pg_table_size is just table+toast+toast-index.
If noone has a better idea for pg_relation_size, I would rather keep it for
consistency with the contrib module, and because it's not too far off.
Best Regards,
Michael Paesold
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
