Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0247B9FB26B for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:37:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38994-01 for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:37:04 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADA149FB1CC for ; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:37:10 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id l6SEb7WW008113; Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:37:07 -0400 (EDT) To: "Steven Flatt" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Vacuum looping? In-reply-to: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com> References: <357fa7590707271432l709da359n68deea693d2c5fdf@mail.gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Steven Flatt" message dated "Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:32:11 -0400" Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:37:07 -0400 Message-ID: <8112.1185633427@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200707/394 X-Sequence-Number: 26078 "Steven Flatt" 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