have news,
the pg version is 9.1.3
a vaccum full, not a plain vaccum, was performed.
o.s. is red hat 7
filesystem: xfs with block size 4k
could it be a problem regarding the block size?
thanks
2015-12-15 12:11 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla <matteo.grolla@xxxxxxxxx>:
Thanks Andreas,Il try2015-12-15 11:07 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:Matteo Grolla <matteo.grolla@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> -------Questions----------------
>
> 1) Can you explain me the big difference between the result in A for table
> alf_node_properties: 17GB and the result in B: ~6GB ?
>
> 2) Can you explain me the difference between the result in B: ~6GB and the
> result in C, the sum of all column sizes, 3717MB ?
Maybe there are some dead tuples, run a VACUUM FULL (be careful, it
requires an explicit lock). And please keep in mind that a table
can contains indexes and other objects. A nice explanation and some ways
to gather informations on table-, index- and database sizes can you find
here:
http://andreas.scherbaum.la/blog/archives/282-table-size,-database-size.html
Regards, Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly." (unknown)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
