Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Are we configured correctly for storing files? #2317

Open
kineticsquid opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 1 comment
Open

Are we configured correctly for storing files? #2317

kineticsquid opened this issue Jan 31, 2024 · 1 comment

Comments

@kineticsquid
Copy link
Contributor

Origin of this is https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/issues/4157.

Our deployment Postgres instance has grown to 17G. Here's a summary of the table sizes:

table_name                      | pg_size_pretty | pg_relation_size
-----------------------------------------------------+----------------+------------------
file_resource                                       | 16 GB          |       6921715712
jobrunr_jobs                                        | 1711 MB        |       1048633344
extension_version                                   | 178 MB         |         90038272
migration_item                                      | 50 MB          |         36921344
azure_download_count_processed_item                 | 7056 kB        |          6193152
extension                                           | 10 MB          |          4415488
user_data                                           | 3784 kB        |          3366912
personal_access_token                               | 1464 kB        |           819200
persisted_log                                       | 456 kB         |           270336
namespace                                           | 688 kB         |           270336
namespace_membership                                | 576 kB         |           204800
jobrunr_recurring_jobs                              | 224 kB         |            98304
extension_review                                    | 256 kB         |            98304
spring_session_attributes                           | 3432 kB        |            49152
namespace_social_links                              | 72 kB          |            40960
jobrunr_metadata                                    | 120 kB         |            40960
admin_statistics_publishers_by_extensions_published | 48 kB          |            24576
spring_session                                      | 10 MB          |            16384
admin_statistics_top_most_downloaded_extensions     | 40 kB          |            16384
admin_statistics_top_namespace_extensions           | 8192 bytes     |             8192
admin_statistics_top_most_active_publishing_users   | 8192 bytes     |             8192
shedlock                                            | 56 kB          |             8192
admin_statistics_extensions_by_rating               | 8192 bytes     |             8192
admin_statistics_top_namespace_extension_versions   | 8192 bytes     |             8192
admin_statistics                                    | 40 kB          |             8192
signature_key_pair                                  | 48 kB          |             8192
jobrunr_backgroundjobservers                        | 912 kB         |             8192
jobrunr_migrations                                  | 24 kB          |             8192
flyway_schema_history                               | 48 kB          |             8192
jobrunr_jobs_stats                                  | 0 bytes        |                0

Given that we're storing files separately, the file_resource table seems excessively large. Are we configured correctly?

@kkistm
Copy link

kkistm commented Feb 23, 2024

I would also say that jobrunr_jobs looks too big. Is it a relevant information for the service? Should it be archived to a table in another scheme, for example, and archived there regularly?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants