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

Reply via email to