FYI, after I changed text field into character varying, I vaccuum the whole database, resulting in much smaller database size Cheers, NH .::. Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by The ESQ Way 165 -----Original Message----- From: "Nur Hidayat" <hidayat365@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 08:18:09 To: John R Pierce<pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reply-To: hidayat365@xxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave. How to compact it? Yes, I am aware of that, but that's the fact I'm facing Right now I'am happy enough my system runs well without eating up my drive :) I'll investigate more later when time available :) Cheers, Nur Hidayat .::. Sent from my BlackBerry® powered by The ESQ Way 165 -----Original Message----- From: John R Pierce <pierce@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Sender: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.orgDate: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:39:28 To: <pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: A 154 GB table swelled to 527 GB on the Slony slave. How to compact it? On 03/12/12 12:06 AM, Nur Hidayat wrote: > > I once have the same problem. In my case it's because most of my table > using text datatype. > When I change the field type to character varying (1000) database size > reduced significantly > > Unfortunately, I haven't investigate more, but it looks like how > postgres stores data that doesn't make any sense. text and character varying storage is exactly hte same, the only difference is the varchar has an optional length constraint -- john r pierce N 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
