Thread: Add SQL function to show total block numbers in the relation
Hello, I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the relation. I now reviewing this patch (https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/2211/) and I think, it is usefull for knowing how many blocks there are in the relation to determine whether we use VACUUM RESUME or not. Of cource, we can know this value such as select (pg_relation_size('t') / current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int; but I think it is a litte bit complex. Comment and feedback are very welcome. Regards , Yu Kimura
Attachment
btkimurayuzk <btkimurayuzk@oss.nttdata.com> writes: > I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the > relation. > ... > Of cource, we can know this value such as > select (pg_relation_size('t') / > current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int; I don't really see why the existing solution isn't sufficient. regards, tom lane
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 10:09:47AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > btkimurayuzk <btkimurayuzk@oss.nttdata.com> writes: >> I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the >> relation. >> ... >> Of cource, we can know this value such as >> select (pg_relation_size('t') / >> current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int; > > I don't really see why the existing solution isn't sufficient. +1. -- Michael
Attachment
> btkimurayuzk <btkimurayuzk@oss.nttdata.com> writes: >> I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the >> relation. >> ... >> Of cource, we can know this value such as >> select (pg_relation_size('t') / >> current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int; > > I don't really see why the existing solution isn't sufficient. I think it's a little difficult to introduce the block size using two values `current block size` and `reference size` for beginners who are not familiar with the internal structure of Postgres, This is the reason why the existing solution was insufficient. What do you think? Regards, Yu Kimura
Hello, Kimura-san. At Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:04:51 +0900, btkimurayuzk <btkimurayuzk@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > > btkimurayuzk <btkimurayuzk@oss.nttdata.com> writes: > >> I propose new simple sql query, which shows total block numbers in the > >> relation. > >> ... > >> Of cource, we can know this value such as > >> select (pg_relation_size('t') / > >> current_setting('block_size')::bigint)::int; > > I don't really see why the existing solution isn't sufficient. > > I think it's a little difficult to introduce the block size using two > values `current block size` and `reference size` > for beginners who are not familiar with the internal structure of > Postgres, > > This is the reason why the existing solution was insufficient. > > What do you think? Sorry, but I also vote -1 for the new function. Size in block number is useless for those who doesn't understand the notion of block, or block size. Those who understands the notion should come up with the simple formula (except the annoying casts). Anyone can find the clue to the base values by searching the document in the Web with the keywords "block size" and "relation size" or even with "table size". (FWIW, I would even do the same for the new function if any...) If they need it so frequently, a user-defined function is easily made up. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:01:34PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > Sorry, but I also vote -1 for the new function. So do I. If there are no objections, I will mark the patch as rejected in the CF app. > If they need it so frequently, a user-defined function is easily > made up. Yep. -- Michael
Attachment
On Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 09:30:56AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 06:01:34PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >> Sorry, but I also vote -1 for the new function. > > So do I. If there are no objections, I will mark the patch as > rejected in the CF app. And done. -- Michael
Attachment
> Size in block number is useless for those who doesn't understand the > notion of block, or block size. Those who understands the notion > should come up with the simple formula (except the annoying > casts). Anyone can find the clue to the base values by searching the > document in the Web with the keywords "block size" and "relation size" > or even with "table size". (FWIW, I would even do the same for the new > function if any...) If they need it so frequently, a user-defined > function is easily made up. > > regards. I didn't know about the existence of the user-defined function . I fully understood , Thanks . Regards, Yu Kimura