> Or... It seems to me that we have been observing something on the order
> of 10x-20x slowdown for vacuuming a table. I think this is WAY
> overcompensating for the original problems, and would cause it's own
> problem as mentioned above. Since the granularity of delay seems to be
> the problem can we do more work between delays? Instead of sleeping
> after every page (I assume this is what it's doing) perhaps we should
> sleep every 10 pages,
I also think doing more than one page per sleep is advantageous since
it would still allow the OS to do it's readahead optimizations.
I suspect those would fall flat if only one page is fetched per sleep.
Andreas
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
