On 12/15/15 3:52 AM, Matteo Grolla wrote:
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 ?
11GB of indexes would explain it.
2) Can you explain me the difference between the result in B: ~6GB and
the result in C,
also,
serializable_value is of type bytea
2015-12-17 16:12 GMT+01:00 Matteo Grolla :
> 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
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 :
> Thanks Andreas,
> Il try
>
>
Thanks Andreas,
Il try
2015-12-15 11:07 GMT+01:00 Andreas Kretschmer :
> Matteo Grolla 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)
Matteo Grolla 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
Hi,
I hope you can help me understand why the db is so big and if there's
anything I can do.
It's the DB of an Enterprise Content Management application, Alfresco. Here
are some data I collected, after executing a vaccum from pg admin.
A) Largest tables sizes relation total_size
SELECT nspn
