Re: Vacuum looping?

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?
Date: ,
Msg-id: 8112.1185633427@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Vacuum looping?  ("Steven Flatt")
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Vacuum looping?  ("Steven Flatt", )
 Re: Vacuum looping?  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Vacuum looping?  ("Jim C. Nasby", )
  Re: Vacuum looping?  ("Steven Flatt", )
   Re: Vacuum looping?  (Decibel!, )

"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


pgsql-performance by date:

From: "Bruno Rodrigues Siqueira"
Date:
Subject: RES: select on 1milion register = 6s
From: andrew@pillette.com
Date:
Subject: Re: Slow query with backwards index scan