From: | Frank Lanitz <frank(at)frank(dot)uvena(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_database_size differs from df -s |
Date: | 2012-06-06 15:58:28 |
Message-ID: | 4FCF7E24.4000000@frank.uvena.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Am 06.06.2012 17:49, schrieb Tom Lane:
> Frank Lanitz <frank(at)frank(dot)uvena(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Manoj Govindassamy | 2012-06-06 16:16:16 | Re: Postgres 9.1 Synchronous Replication and stuck queries during sync repl setup |
Previous Message | Gabriele Bartolini | 2012-06-06 15:51:46 | Re: Postgres 9.1 Synchronous Replication and stuck queries during sync repl setup |