Bernd Helmle writes:
> Since i'm not able to finish those other things in time, i wrapped up my
> existing code for this issue and came up with the attached patch, which
> should implement the behavior Tom proposed. These are two new functions
> pg_table_size() and pg_indexes_size(). This patch
Tom Lane wrote:
I'm inclined to think that table vs. index is the right level of
abstraction for these functions, and that breaking it down further than
that isn't all that helpful. We have the bottom-level information
(per-fork relation size) available for those who really want the
details.
Greg Smith writes:
> The only question I'm left with after browsing the patch and staring at
> the above results is whether it makes sense to expose a pg_toast_size
> function. That would make the set available here capable of handling
> almost every situation somebody might want to know about
Bernd Helmle wrote:
These are two new functions pg_table_size() and pg_indexes_size().
This patch also changes pg_total_relation_size() to be a shorthand for
pg_table_size() + pg_indexes_size().
Attached is a test program to exercise these new functions. I
thoroughly abuse generate_series an
--On 22. Dezember 2009 15:11:40 +0100 Bernd Helmle
wrote:
Bernd, there's a basic spec if you have time to work on this.
I see if i can get some time for it during christmas vacation (its on my
radar for a longer period of time). I'm still working on this NOT NULL
pg_constraint representat
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?C=E9dric_Villemain?= writes:
> 2009/12/21 Tom Lane :
>> Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
>> and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
>> giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
>> pg_total_relation_size
--On 21. Dezember 2009 12:02:02 -0500 Greg Smith
wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
pg_total_relation_size
--On 22. Dezember 2009 11:46:32 +0100 Cédric Villemain
wrote:
Did you mean :
pg_table_size() = base table + toast table
pg_indexes_size() = base indexes + toast indexes
?
Since you always have a toast index automatically it makes sense to include
them in pg_table_size().
--
Thanks
2009/12/21 Tom Lane :
> Greg Smith writes:
>> To answer Rafael's concerns directly: you're right that this is
>> confusing. pg_relation_size is always going to do what it does right
>> now just because of how that fits into the design of the database.
>> However, the documentation should be upda
Greg Stark writes:
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
>> Right; that's exactly the way I'm computing things now, I just have to crawl
>> way too much catalog data to do it. I also agree that if we provide
>> pg_table_size, the issue of "pg_relation_size doesn't do what I want"
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
>> and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
>> giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
>> pg_total_relation_si
Tom Lane wrote:
Perhaps invent pg_table_size() = base table + toast table + toast index
and pg_indexes_size() = all other indexes for table
giving us the property pg_table_size + pg_indexes_size =
pg_total_relation_size
Right; that's exactly the way I'm computing things now, I jus
Greg Smith writes:
> To answer Rafael's concerns directly: you're right that this is
> confusing. pg_relation_size is always going to do what it does right
> now just because of how that fits into the design of the database.
> However, the documentation should be updated to warn against the
Bernd Helmle wrote:
I've created a C-Function a while ago that extracts the TOAST size for
a given relation. This gave me the opportunity to do a
pg_relation_size(oid) + pg_relation_toast_size(oid) for a given table
oid to calculate on disk data size required by a table. Maybe we
should includ
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rafael Martinez writes:
>> I am probably missing the point here, why is it not supposed to show the
>> size of the table(data) *without* indexes?
>
> Because pg_relation_size is defined at the "physical" level of showing
> one relat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bernd Helmle wrote:
>
>
> --On 21. Dezember 2009 10:01:37 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> It's not supposed to. Use pg_total_relation_size if you want a number
>> that includes index and toast space.
>
> I've created a C-Function a while ago that extr
Rafael Martinez writes:
> I am probably missing the point here, why is it not supposed to show the
> size of the table(data) *without* indexes?
Because pg_relation_size is defined at the "physical" level of showing
one relation, where relation means a pg_class entry. If you want
agglomerations o
--On 21. Dezember 2009 10:01:37 -0500 Tom Lane wrote:
It's not supposed to. Use pg_total_relation_size if you want a number
that includes index and toast space.
I've created a C-Function a while ago that extracts the TOAST size for a
given relation. This gave me the opportunity to do a pg
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Lane wrote:
> Rafael Martinez writes:
>> I wonder why the function pg_relation_size(text) does not take into
>> account the space used by toast data in a table when returning the space
>> used by the table.
>
> It's not supposed to. Use pg_total
Rafael Martinez writes:
> I wonder why the function pg_relation_size(text) does not take into
> account the space used by toast data in a table when returning the space
> used by the table.
It's not supposed to. Use pg_total_relation_size if you want a number
that includes index and toast space.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hello
I wonder why the function pg_relation_size(text) does not take into
account the space used by toast data in a table when returning the space
used by the table.
As an administrator I would expect pg_total_relation_size() to return
data+toast+ind
21 matches
Mail list logo
