Andrew McMillan wrote:
>On Mon, 2003-01-06 at 13:36, Gerard Samuel wrote:
>
>
>>Im not sure if this is the right list, but here goes.
>>I have a dev box, that I allocated, 104M of space to share between,
>>mysql & pgsql.
>>In mysql, I have 376 tables across 11 databases which is taking up only
>>1.3M.
>>In pgsql, I have 33 tables on 1 database, and that seems to be taking up
>>74M.
>>
>>Does postgresql require soooo much disk space to operate??
>>Thanks for any insight you may provide.
>>
>>
>
>Surely we'd need to know how many _rows_ there are in those tables? Also
>how many indexes and index rows?
>
True. But not sure how to gather all that info for right now.
To get a more accurate picture, I dropped the one database that is in
Postgre, stopped and restarted Postgre.
It seems to be using just over 62M.
I recreated the database and file usage remains unchanged (looking via
df -H), the database isn't really that large maybe about 1000 rows of
data currently.
>
>I believe that PostgreSQL does have greater overhead on disk than MySQL,
>however. Just to have the database started will mean that you have a
>number of write-ahead logs (typically 16MB each - on my laptop these
>take up 114M) which are used internally by the database server for
>transaction handling - MySQL doesn't need these, of course.
>
Well if its normal for PostgreSQL to need more disk space, looks like Im
going to have to do a couple of disk to disk copying soon,
and repartion my HD.
Thanks
>
>Cheers,
> Andrew.
>
>
--
Gerard Samuel
http://www.trini0.org:81/
http://dev.trini0.org:81/
