From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Steven Flatt <steven.flatt@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:37:07 -0400
Message-ID: <8112.1185633427@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com>
"Steven Flatt" <steven.flatt@gmail.com> writes:
> The vacuum then just sat there. What I can't understand is why it went back
> for a second pass of the pkey index? There was nothing writing to the table
> once the vacuum began. Is this behaviour expected?
Yes (hint: the numbers tell me what your maintenance_work_mem setting is).
You should have left it alone, probably, though there seems to be
something funny about your foo_1 index --- why was that so much slower
than the others for the first pass?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, steven.flatt@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
In-Reply-To: <8112.1185633427@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox