2011/5/25 Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>:
> Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of mié may 25 12:37:24 -0400 2011:
>> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't know what client-side code might be looking at
>> > relpages/reltuples.
>>
>> I know that I find reltuples useful for getting an "accurate enough"
>> sense of rows in a table (or set of tables) without resorting to
>> count(*). I'd be OK with any two of pages, tuples, and density; but
>> dropping to one would make databases harder to manage, IMV.
>>
>> Personally, I don't have much code that uses those columns;
>> eliminating an existing column wouldn't involve much pain for me as
>> long as it could still be derived.
>
> Well, we only actually need to store one number, because you can figure
> out a much more precise number-of-pages figure with pg_relation_size()
> divided by configured page size.
>
> (We feel free to hack around catalogs in other places, and we regularly
> break pgAdmin and the like when we drop columns -- people just live with
> it and update their tools. I don't think it's such a big deal in this
> particular case.)
I may miss something but we need relation size in costsize.c even if
we have a reldensity (or we need a reltuples). Else what values should
be used to estimate the relation size ? (pg_relation_size() goes down
to kernel/fs to ask the stat.st_size, is it really what we want?)
>
> --
> Álvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
--
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
