Tom Lane wrote: > "Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> 2. I only bothered to insert delays in the processing loops of plain > >> VACUUM and btree index cleanup. VACUUM FULL and cleanup of non-btree > >> indexes aren't done yet. > >> > > I thought we didn't want the delay in vacuum full since it locks things > > down, we want vacuum full to finish ASAP. As opposed to normal vacuum > > which would be fired by the autovacuum daemon. > > My thought was that it'd be up to the user to set vacuum_page_delay > appropriately for what he is doing. It might or might not ever make > sense to use a nonzero delay in VACUUM FULL, but the facility should be > there. (Since plain and full VACUUM share the same index cleanup code, > it would take some klugery to implement a policy of "no delays for > VACUUM FULL" anyway.) > > Best practice would likely be to leave the default vacuum_page_delay at > zero, and have the autovacuum daemon set a nonzero value for vacuums it > issues.
What is the advantage of delaying vacuum per page vs. just doing vacuum less frequently? -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
