Re: DBSize backend integration
От | Michael Paesold |
---|---|
Тема | Re: DBSize backend integration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 00c101c57a31$21545bd0$0f01a8c0@zaphod обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: DBSize backend integration ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Ответы |
Re: DBSize backend integration
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Dave Page wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:andrew@dunslane.net] > > Sent: 24 June 2005 21:12 > > To: Bruce Momjian > > Cc: Dave Page; PostgreSQL-development > > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DBSize backend integration > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > >So drop total_relation_size(), relation_size_components(), and what > > >else? > > > > But these answer easily the question I see most asked - how > > much space > > in total does the relation occupy. I'd like to see at least one of > > these, properly named and fixed w.r.t. schemas. Getting > > total_relation_size() from relation_size_components() would > > be easy, so > > if we only keep one then keep relation_size_components(). > > relation_size_components() depends on total_relation_size() (which I > have to agree could be useful). I think relation_size_components() is > unecessary though - it looks like it was designed to show a summary > rather than as a view to be used by other clients (if that makes > sense!). I agree that total_relation_size() is quite useful at least when used from the command line. It should give you the correct answer to what space a table including indexes and _toast_tables_ occupies. I am not sure about relation_size_components. Best Regards, Michael Paesold
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: