From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
Cc: Mariel Cherkassky <mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 10:49:25 -0500
Message-ID: <887.1513093765@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKFQuwazP-5Lsf_Y=qqmscHsUByXLg6EMLnQMQW5N=-5AX+-mA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+t6e1=OQANSQ+vxUW8tR4hBPvnA=y4ThUToACejAoguex5dFA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAKFQuwazP-5Lsf_Y=qqmscHsUByXLg6EMLnQMQW5N=-5AX+-mA@mail.gmail.com>
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Mariel Cherkassky <
> mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And the bigger question, Where are the missing 180G ?
> In the toaster probably...
pg_total_relation_size should have counted the toast tables,
as well as the indexes, if memory serves.
What I'm wondering about is the system catalogs, which Mariel's
query explicitly excluded. 180G would be awful darn large for
those, but maybe there's a bloat problem somewhere.
Otherwise, try to identify the largest individual files in the
database directory ...
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.g.johnston@gmail.com, mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL database size is not reasonable
In-Reply-To: <887.1513093765@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox