On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 6:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Perhaps with the contrib adminpack you may easily find where it comes from comparing size from pg_table_size and pg_stat_file ?
>> For me, pg_database_size gives numbers that match up fairly well withPeculiar. If you want to put some time into it, you could try comparing
>> 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.
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
