Message-ID: <53031B18.5060103@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 10:34:32 +0200
From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Organization: VMware
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: David Wall <d.wall@computer.org>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: DB size and TABLE sizes don't seem to add up
References: <530289D4.20106@computer.org>
In-Reply-To: <530289D4.20106@computer.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org

On 02/18/2014 12:14 AM, David Wall wrote:
> I am running PG 9.2.4 and I am trying to figure out why my database size
> shows one value, but the sum of my total relation sizes is so much less.
>
> Basically, I'm told my database is 188MB, but the sum of my total
> relation sizes adds up to just 8.7MB, which is 1/20th of the reported
> total.  Where is the 19/20th of my data then?  We do make significant
> use of large objects, so I suspect it's in there.  Is there a relation
> size query that would include the large object data associated with any
> OIDs in those tables?

You can use "select pg_total_relation_size('pg_largeobject')" to get the 
total size of the large objects. Attributing large objects to the tables 
that refer them is more difficult. For a single table, something like this:

select sum(pg_column_size(lo.data))
from lotest_stash_values t, pg_largeobject lo
where lo.loid = t.loid;

Replace "lotest_stash_values" with the table's name and lo.loid with the 
name of the OID column.

- Heikki


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance