Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDF82E0045 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:57:33 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88781-02 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:57:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from 27.mail-out.ovh.net (27.mail-out.ovh.net [91.121.30.210]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 15F282E0048 for ; Mon, 14 Apr 2008 06:57:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 23428 invoked by uid 503); 14 Apr 2008 11:37:32 -0000 Received: from gw2.ovh.net (HELO mail174.ha.ovh.net) (213.251.189.202) by 27.mail-out.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2008 11:37:32 -0000 Received: from b0.ovh.net (HELO queue-out) (213.186.33.50) by b0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2008 09:57:28 -0000 Received: from par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net (HELO apollo13.peufeu.com) (88.161.102.87) by ns0.ovh.net with SMTP; 14 Apr 2008 09:57:26 -0000 Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:01:52 +0200 To: "Adrian Moisey" Subject: Re: db size From: PFC Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=utf-8 MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4802F9E4.3000704@careerjunction.co.za> <48032237.4040604@careerjunction.co.za> <4803276C.2090901@careerjunction.co.za> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4803276C.2090901@careerjunction.co.za> User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.24 (Linux) X-Ovh-Remote: 88.161.102.87 (par69-8-88-161-102-87.fbx.proxad.net) X-Ovh-Local: 213.186.33.20 (ns0.ovh.net) X-Spam-Check: DONE|H 0.500004/N X-Ovh-Tracer-Id: 4754675307823892016 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.824 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.824 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200804/173 X-Sequence-Number: 29666 > Will this help with performance ? Depends if the bloat is in part of your working set. If debloating can make the working set fit in RAM, or lower your IOs, you'll get a boost. >> Now, is the bloat in the tables (which tables ?) or in the indexes >> (which indexes ?), or in the toast tables perhaps, or in the system >> catalogs or all of the above ? Or perhaps there is a long-forgotten >> process that got zombified while holding a huge temp table ? (not very >> likely, but who knows). >> Use pg_relation_size() and its friends to get an idea of the size >> of stuff. > > I'll look into that, thanks >