# Alternative to Base.summarysize?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-base-summarysize/1635>\
**Category:** General Usage\
**Created:** [January 22, 2017, 5:50am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-base-summarysize/1635 "2017-01-22T05:50:39Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ScottPJones](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/scottpjones/32/146_2.png) [@ScottPJones](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ScottPJones)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 5:50am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-base-summarysize/1635/1 "2017-01-22T05:50:39Z")

</div>

I was wondering if there were any alternative to `Base.summarysize`, for trying to show the memory cost of an object.  
It looks like it is based on `sizeof`, instead of returning the actual amount of memory allocated for that object.  
For example, if you ask for the summarysize of a 3x3 Float64 array, it returns 72, which doesn’t reflect the real allocated size, which is at least 112 bytes on a 64-bit system, due to the overhead of the Array type itself.  
This also doesn’t reflect the amount of actually allocated either, just the portion that is visible.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ihnorton](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ihnorton/32/26_2.png) [@ihnorton](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ihnorton)\
**Post date:** [January 22, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/alternative-to-base-summarysize/1635/2 "2017-01-22T16:35:08Z")

</div>

I don’t see anything to that effect in base. Ref: related discussion and [suggestion](https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/16614#issuecomment-222385002).