FYI, after I changed text field into character varying, I vaccuum the whole database, resulting in much smaller
databasesize
Cheers,
NH
.::.
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by The ESQ Way 165
-----Original Message-----
From: "Nur Hidayat" <hidayat365@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:18:09
To: John R Pierce<pierce@hogranch.com>; <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Reply-To: hidayat365@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave. How to compact it?
Yes, I am aware of that, but that's the fact I'm facing
Right now I'am happy enough my system runs well without eating up my drive :)
I'll investigate more later when time available :)
Cheers,
Nur Hidayat
.::.
Sent from my BlackBerry®
powered by The ESQ Way 165
-----Original Message-----
From: John R Pierce <pierce@hogranch.com>
Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.orgDate: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:39:28
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave.
How to compact it?
On 03/12/12 12:06 AM, Nur Hidayat wrote:
>
> I once have the same problem. In my case it's because most of my table
> using text datatype.
> When I change the field type to character varying (1000) database size
> reduced significantly
>
> Unfortunately, I haven't investigate more, but it looks like how
> postgres stores data
that doesn't make any sense. text and character varying storage is
exactly hte same, the only difference is the varchar has an optional
length constraint
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general