Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie > <michael.monnerie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
