have news, the pg version is 9.1.3 a vaccum full, not a plain vaccum, was performed. o.s. is red hat 7 filesystem: xfs with block size 4k
could it be a problem regarding the block size? thanks 2015-12-15 12:11 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla <matteo.gro...@gmail.com>: > Thanks Andreas, > Il try > > 2015-12-15 11:07 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer <akretsch...@spamfence.net>: > >> Matteo Grolla <matteo.gro...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > -------Questions---------------- >> > >> > 1) Can you explain me the big difference between the result in A for >> table >> > alf_node_properties: 17GB and the result in B: ~6GB ? >> > >> > 2) Can you explain me the difference between the result in B: ~6GB and >> the >> > result in C, the sum of all column sizes, 3717MB ? >> >> Maybe there are some dead tuples, run a VACUUM FULL (be careful, it >> requires an explicit lock). And please keep in mind that a table >> can contains indexes and other objects. A nice explanation and some ways >> to gather informations on table-, index- and database sizes can you find >> here: >> >> http://andreas.scherbaum.la/blog/archives/282-table-size,-database-size.html >> >> >> Regards, Andreas >> -- >> Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely >> unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds) >> "If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown) >> Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889° >> >> >> -- >> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> ) >> To make changes to your subscription: >> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >> > >