2011/3/23 Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com>: > Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié mar 23 17:24:59 -0300 2011: >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Bernd Helmle <maili...@oopsware.de> wrote: >> > It stroke me today again, that \dt+ isn't displaying the acurate table size >> > for tables, since it uses pg_relation_size() till now. With having >> > pg_table_size() since PostgreSQL 9.0 available, i believe it would be more >> > useful to have the total acquired storage displayed, including implicit >> > objects (the mentioned case where it was not very useful atm was a table >> > with a big TOAST table). >> >> I guess the threshold question for this patch is whether >> pg_table_size() is a "more accurate" table size or just a different >> one. > > Not including the toast table and index in the size is just plain wrong. > Reporting the size without the toast objects is an implementation > artifact that should not be done unless explicitely requested.
+1 can we enhance a detail for table and show more accurate numbers? table size: xxx toast size: xxx indexes size: xxx Regards Pavel Stehule > > -- > Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> > The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. > PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers > -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
