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 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to