# Store.size of an index **URL:** \ **Category:** Elasticsearch\ **Created:** [January 17, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818 "2018-01-17T03:36:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![shwesinhan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/shwesinhan/32/78663_2.png) [@shwesinhan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/shwesinhan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:36am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/1 "2018-01-17T03:36:02Z")
Hi there! i am not clear on store.size and pri.store.size. > health status index pri rep docs.count docs.deleted **store.size pri.store.size** > yellow open logstash-2018.01.16 5 1 24964 0 **34.9mb 34.9mb** above index info, 1. are **store.size** and **pri.store.size** are compressed already? 2. is actual **total** store on disk **store.size + pri.store.size** ( **34.9mb+34.9mb** ) or **only store.size**? appreciate if someone clean it up my mess up. ---
**Author:** ![warkolm](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/warkolm/32/39224_2.png) [@warkolm](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/warkolm)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:41am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/2 "2018-01-17T03:41:46Z")
1. If you are using 5.X and above, then yes these will be compressed sizes. 2. Yes. Because you have unassigned replicas the total is not 2 x `pri.store.size`. ---
**Author:** ![val](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/val/32/138203_2.png) [@val](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/val)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:42am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/3 "2018-01-17T03:42:47Z")
`store.size` is the store size taken by primary & replica shards `pri.store.size` is the store size taken only by primary shards If your replica shards were properly assigned (i.e. status=green), then `store.size` would be 69.8mb (=2x 34.9mb) ---
**Author:** ![shwesinhan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/shwesinhan/32/78663_2.png) [@shwesinhan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/shwesinhan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:53am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/4 "2018-01-17T03:53:25Z")
so, may i know which one is best practice? replica shards **assigned** or **unassigned**? ---
**Author:** ![val](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/val/32/138203_2.png) [@val](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/val)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:56am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/6 "2018-01-17T03:56:41Z")
If you have a single node (usually in dev environment), you don't need replicas as you won't be able to assign them, so you can set `index.number_of_replicas` to 0 in your index settings when creating your index. However, in production, you might want some redundancy, hence you usually provision more than one data nodes and the replicas shards will be properly assigned. ---
**Author:** ![shwesinhan](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/user_avatar/discuss.elastic.co/shwesinhan/32/78663_2.png) [@shwesinhan](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/shwesinhan)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2018, 3:58am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/7 "2018-01-17T03:58:39Z")
noted with thanks 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![system](https://us1.discourse-cdn.com/elastic/original/3X/1/a/1ac57faf039f6b580b3f104ef42a2a89e41014de.png) [@system](https://discuss.elastic.co/u/system)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2018, 3:59am UTC](https://discuss.elastic.co/t/store-size-of-an-index/115818/8 "2018-02-14T03:59:01Z")
This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.