On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I invoke vacuum manually and do so with VacuumCostDelay == 0, I > have basically declared my intentions to get this pain over with as > fast as possible even if it might interfere with other processes. > > Under that condition, shouldn't it use BAS_BULKWRITE rather than > BAS_VACUUM? The smaller ring size leads to a lot of synchronous WAL > flushes which I think can slow the vacuum down a lot.
Of course, an autovacuum of a really big table could run too slowly, too, even though it's not a foreground task. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
