Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [209.114.166.2])
	by hub.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA26399
	for <pgsql-sql@hub.org>; Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:43:02 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us)
Received: from sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.sss.pgh.pa.us (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA20578;
	Fri, 1 Oct 1999 17:42:28 -0400 (EDT)
To: "Steven M. Wheeler" <swheeler@sabre.com>
cc: pgsql-sql@hub.org
Subject: Re: [SQL] Questions about vacuum analyze 
In-reply-to: Your message of Fri, 01 Oct 1999 14:47:32 -0500
	<37F50FD3.F269B020@sabre.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Oct 1999 17:42:28 -0400
Message-ID: <20576.938814148@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"Steven M. Wheeler" <swheeler@sabre.com> writes:
> DB: version 6.5
> 33 hours [to vacuum] - WOW!

Yipes.  We did find and fix a glitch in memory allocation in vacuum
(causing both slowness and excessive memory usage) between 6.5 and
6.5.2.  You might try updating to see if it's gotten any better...

			regards, tom lane