On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Frank Lanitz <fr...@frank.uvena.de> writes: > > Am 06.06.2012 17:49, schrieb Tom Lane: > >> 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. > > Peculiar. If you want to put some time into it, you could try comparing > sizes table-by-table to see if you can isolate where the discrepancy is. > > Perhaps with the contrib adminpack you may easily find where it comes from comparing size from pg_table_size and pg_stat_file ?
> The only reason I can think of for du to report a size smaller than the > nominal file length (which is which the pg_xxx_size functions look at) > is if the file contains unallocated "holes". That really shouldn't ever > happen with PG tables though. > > regards, tom lane > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
