Scott Marlowe <scott.marl...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie
> <michael.monne...@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 ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
