Re: Estimating space required for indexes
От | Shridhar Daithankar |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Estimating space required for indexes |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200304282002.18645.shridhar_daithankar@nospam.persistent.co.in обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Estimating space required for indexes (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Estimating space required for indexes
|
Список | pgsql-general |
On Monday 28 April 2003 19:40, Tom Lane wrote: > Assuming your "float"s were float4s, the heap tuple size is Yes, they are. > 28 bytes overhead + 3 * 4 bytes data = 40 bytes/row > > (assuming WITHOUT OIDS, no nulls, Intel-like alignment rules) while the > index tuple size is > > 12 bytes overhead + 2 * 4 bytes data = 20 bytes/row With these overheads it turns out that, disk space for table= 8.1M*40=324MB disk space for index=8.1M*20*1.5=243MB On disk actually, 5.9GB is gone, as I mentioned earlier. Even we count other overheads, the above total should not blow beyond 600-650MB, isn't it? But that is not the case. And there are absolutely no other objects in the database. It is vacuumed analyze after insertions. No deletes at all so far. I really wonder where this 10x bloat came from. > > This data is just a small sample of things and > > more data is coming. > > Better buy more disk ... Disk is not a problem. But that does not mean I would like fill it up without knowing what is happening.. Shridhar -- I know it all. I just can't remember it all at once.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: