Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: >> Most likely that's the libc implementation of the select()-based sleeps >> for vacuum_cost_delay. I'm still suspicious that the writes are eating >> more cost_delay points than you think.
> Tested that. It does look like if I increase vacuum_cost_limit to 10000 > and lower vacuum_cost_page_dirty to 10, it reads 5-7 pages and writes > 2-3 before each pollsys. The math seems completely wrong on that, > though -- it should be 50 and 30 pages, or similar. I think there could be a lot of cost_delay points getting expended without any effects visible at the level of strace. Maybe try fooling with vacuum_cost_page_hit and vacuum_cost_page_miss, too. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers