Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data
Alvaro Herrera wrote: Tom Lane wrote: Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Florian Weimer wrote: The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). As of last week there's a new pg_table_size available that does what you want here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00288.php I don't believe \dt+ has been updated yet to use that though; that's worth considering for a minute, not sure anybody thought about it yet. We could only use pg_table_size against a backend = 9.0, which would mean that the displayed results mean something different depending on which backend version psql is being used with. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it does seem a bit evil. Perhaps we can emulate pg_table_size on earlier server versions, using a query which provides the sum of table plus toast items. It would be a bit slower, but the normal case of using the same server version would be fast. Added to TODO: Consider showing TOAST and index sizes in \dt+ * http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00912.php -- Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.ushttp://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data
Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Florian Weimer wrote: The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). As of last week there's a new pg_table_size available that does what you want here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00288.php I don't believe \dt+ has been updated yet to use that though; that's worth considering for a minute, not sure anybody thought about it yet. We could only use pg_table_size against a backend = 9.0, which would mean that the displayed results mean something different depending on which backend version psql is being used with. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it does seem a bit evil. An alternative worth thinking about is to make it use pg_total_relation_size instead of pg_relation_size. That's available, with similar semantics, in all versions that have pg_relation_size either (ie, = 8.1). Also, this is arguably more nearly the right thing since at the level of \dt+ I think people would expect indexes to get folded in too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data
Tom Lane wrote: Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com writes: Florian Weimer wrote: The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). As of last week there's a new pg_table_size available that does what you want here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00288.php I don't believe \dt+ has been updated yet to use that though; that's worth considering for a minute, not sure anybody thought about it yet. We could only use pg_table_size against a backend = 9.0, which would mean that the displayed results mean something different depending on which backend version psql is being used with. That's not necessarily a deal-breaker, but it does seem a bit evil. Perhaps we can emulate pg_table_size on earlier server versions, using a query which provides the sum of table plus toast items. It would be a bit slower, but the normal case of using the same server version would be fast. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
[GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data
The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). -- Florian Weimerfwei...@bfk.de BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstraße 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Re: [GENERAL] \dt+ sizes don't include TOAST data
Florian Weimer wrote: The sizes displayed by \dt+ in version 8.4.2 do not take TOAST tables into account, presumably because the pg_relation_size does not reflect that, either. I think this is a bit surprising. From a user perspective, these are part of the table storage (I understand that the indices might be a different story, but TOAST table are a fairly deep implementation detail and should perhaps be hidden here). As of last week there's a new pg_table_size available that does what you want here: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-01/msg00288.php I don't believe \dt+ has been updated yet to use that though; that's worth considering for a minute, not sure anybody thought about it yet. -- Greg Smith2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
