On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 5:39 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > Perhaps you meant to decrease vacuumm_cost_page_miss instead of > vacuum_cost_page_dirty?
You're right. Evidently I didn't write this email very carefully. Sorry about that. To say it again: I think that a miss (without dirtying the page) should be cheaper than dirtying a page. This thread began because I wanted to discuss the relative cost of different kinds of I/O operations to VACUUM, without necessarily discussing the absolute costs/time delays. -- Peter Geoghegan
