On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 07:56:07PM +0200, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > Thanks, I tried it and it worked. I did not know that changing this > setting would result in such a performance drop ( I just followed an
It's not a performance drop. It's an on-purpose delay of the functionality, introduced so that _other_ transactions don't get I/O starved. ("Make vacuum fast" isn't in most cases an interesting goal.) A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] I remember when computers were frustrating because they *did* exactly what you told them to. That actually seems sort of quaint now. --J.D. Baldwin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend