On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
Only if we don't mind going beyond 80 columns. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
