On Wed, 2012-06-06 at 18:46 +0200, Julien Rouhaud wrote: > 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 ? >
You don't need the adminpack extension to use pg_stat_file. pg_stat_file is in PostgreSQL core. -- Guillaume http://blog.guillaume.lelarge.info http://www.dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
