Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF1963308E
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:24:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 69227-10 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:24:33 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com (yx-out-2324.google.com [74.125.44.29])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB94F632F9E
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 22:24:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: by yx-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 3so740220yxj.73
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:24:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
	:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding;
	bh=KHf0xAKMXIuObM8+wa1r8r+4+dRuUBK6XWijDG4WAtY=;
	b=OKS7cjApTs+fHDXAr6aLtgCyJNtqqZ2HnXoiJUmrlApoRgrSaqNDgrdGrsF3iHw2F3
	5Art8CIa0EsV2Ybu1CVZjrpOKjBXX1tzq/L4XyRDTofsu0STswNmmD2z7cL9r3DAMwNW
	h+UjXeB1TJ9zjR4Dff7y5re7xNZ7j55z0v8/k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
	b=xG5FTOYbwxujlZMzdaOtBjy8yjz+rOcHIYcaBtnDQIw5GegCwW3R78lEoNfTrN79qQ
	+q+npyEiiisHOENRWxXvxJgKZvDx1I7OiCfrbjbN+Mlh/WBC2B5KjriZZdeuw0U4kh18
	Z6ejHuUKq6LbP52soa/IWWU+nsJXAYXqOXUBI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.95.15 with SMTP id s15mr31516ybb.245.1234578272238; Fri,
	13 Feb 2009 18:24:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <23106.1234576963@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4995ABC0.4090401@musicreports.com> <200902140102.09224@zmi.at>
	<dcc563d10902131708x2e8dfdadofc6355d8c27c6430@mail.gmail.com>
	<23106.1234576963@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:24:32 -0700
Message-ID: <dcc563d10902131824n72051a44he60bc8d1d7467e5e@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Vacuum wait time problem
From: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Monnerie <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at>,
	pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200902/98
X-Sequence-Number: 31319

On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie
>> <michael.monnerie@is.it-management.at> wrote:
>>> vacuum_cost_delay = 0
>>> That was the trick for me. It was set to 250(ms), where it took 5 hours
>>> for a vacuum to run. Now it takes 5-15 minutes.
>
>> Wow!!!  250 ms is HUGE in the scheme of vacuum cost delay.  even 10ms
>> is usually plenty to slow down vacuum enough to keep it out of your
>> way and double to quadruple your vacuum times.
>
> I wonder whether we ought to tighten the allowed range of
> vacuum_cost_delay.  The upper limit is 1000ms at the moment;
> but that's clearly much higher than is useful, and it seems
> to encourage people to pick silly values ...

I agree.  I can't imagine using a number over 50 or so.