Michael Paesold wrote: > > Do we have to use pg_object_size? Is there a better name? Are > > indexes/toasts even objects? > > Relation is not an ideal names, but I heard people talk about heap relation > and index relation. Indexes and tables (and sequences) are treated in a > similar way quite often. Think of ALTER TABLE example_index RENAME TO > another_index. This is even less obvious. Of course in relational theory, > an index would not be a relation, because an index is just implementation > detail. > > I don't like object_size any better, since that makes me rather think of > large objects or rows as objects (object id...). > > Perhaps pg_table_size should be split into pg_table_size and > pg_indexes_size, where pg_indexes_size is the aggregate of all indexes on a > table und pg_table_size is just table+toast+toast-index. > > If noone has a better idea for pg_relation_size, I would rather keep it for > consistency with the contrib module, and because it's not too far off.
Yea, but then we have toast and we would need another name. I suggested pg_storage_size() because it relates to a storage unit (index, toast, etc), and not a real object or relation. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
