On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie >> <michael.monne...@is.it-management.at> wrote: >>> vacuum_cost_delay = 0 >>> That was the trick for me. It was set to 250(ms), where it took 5 hours >>> for a vacuum to run. Now it takes 5-15 minutes. > >> Wow!!! 250 ms is HUGE in the scheme of vacuum cost delay. even 10ms >> is usually plenty to slow down vacuum enough to keep it out of your >> way and double to quadruple your vacuum times. > > I wonder whether we ought to tighten the allowed range of > vacuum_cost_delay. The upper limit is 1000ms at the moment; > but that's clearly much higher than is useful, and it seems > to encourage people to pick silly values ...
I agree. I can't imagine using a number over 50 or so. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
