Am 06.06.2012 17:49, schrieb Tom Lane: > Frank Lanitz <fr...@frank.uvena.de> writes: >> I've got an issue I'm not sure I might have a misunderstanding. When >> calling > >> select sum(pg_database_size(datid)) as total_size from pg_stat_database > >> the result is much bigger than running a df -s over the postgres folder >> - Its about factor 5 to 10 depending on database. > > Did you mean "du -s"?
Yepp, sure. Was to confused about the two numbers. ;) >> My understanding was, pg_database_size is the database size on disc. Am >> I misunderstanding the docu here? > > For me, pg_database_size gives numbers that match up fairly well with > what "du" says. I would not expect an exact match, since du probably > knows about filesystem overhead (such as metadata) whereas > pg_database_size does not. Something's fishy if it's off by any large > factor, though. Perhaps you have some tables in a nondefault > tablespace, where du isn't seeing them? Nope. Its a pretty much clean database without any fancy stuff. Cheers, Frank -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
