Re: wrong indexes sizes on index page

On 13 October 2010 08:30, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
> Le 13/10/2010 00:35, Thom Brown a écrit :
>> On 12 October 2010 16:19, Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> wrote:
>>> Le 12/10/2010 14:37, Thom Brown a écrit :
>>>> On 12 October 2010 11:01, Timon <timosha@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 2010/10/12 Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info>:
>>>>>> Le 12/10/2010 11:47, Thom Brown a écrit :
>>>>>>> On 12 October 2010 10:29, Timon <timosha@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> see attachment.
>>>>>>>> Last column on table shows index size, but 227MB - is table size.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> postgresql 8.4.4
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> pgadmin 1.13 last dev build from git
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can confirm this using pgAdmin ... weird special version Dave gave
>>>>>>> me last week ... against PostgreSQL 8.3.1, and PostgreSQL 9.0.0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think we changed anything in this area. So you should have the
>>>>>> same issue with 1.12.
>>>>> yes, I have this issue with 1.12.
>>>>
>>>> Looks like it's getting the OID of the table the index is associated
>>>> with rather than just using the indexrelid column from
>>>> pg_stat_all_indexes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're right. Not sure what I was thinking when I applied this on 1.12.
>>> Quick patch (not yet checked):
>>>
>>> diff --git a/pgadmin/schema/pgIndex.cpp b/pgadmin/schema/pgIndex.cpp
>>> index e55daf3..4c2fa23 100644
>>> --- a/pgadmin/schema/pgIndex.cpp
>>> +++ b/pgadmin/schema/pgIndex.cpp
>>> @@ -374,7 +374,7 @@ void pgIndexBase::ShowStatistics(frmMain *form,
>>> ctlListView
>>>              wxT(", idx_blks_hit AS ") + qtIdent(_("Index Blocks Hit"));
>>>
>>>     if (GetConnection()->HasFeature(FEATURE_SIZE))
>>> -        sql += wxT(", pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(") + GetOidStr()
>>> + wxT(")
>>> +        sql += wxT(", pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size(indexrelid)) AS
>>> ") + qtId
>>>
>>>     if (showExtendedStatistics)
>>>     {
>>>
>>> If you want to test, it's all yours. Will check tonight and apply if
>>> good enough.
>>
>> Okay, built with change and works fine :)
>>
>
> You mean with your changes? because this pseudo-patch doesn't work. I
> worked on it yesterday, and found I didn't modify the good method.
> Anyway, I have a patch ready to commit.

Yes, with my changes, which on glancing at yours, looked roughly the
same, but must be a difference somewhere.

--
Thom Brown
Twitter: @darkixion
IRC (freenode): dark_ixion
Registered Linux user: #516935