On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 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 ... > > I agree. I can't imagine using a number over 50 or so. Although I'd probably just emit a log warning for anything over that saying that values over 50 will result in very very long vacuum times. -- Sent via pgsql-admin mailing list (pgsql-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-admin
