2011/3/24 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>:
> 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.
>
sure, it is on new lines
Pavel
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>
