On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:50 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2011/3/23 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@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 <mailings@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
