On 12/12/05 5:26 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The problem was determined to be due to the fact that indexes are vacuumed >> in index order, not in disk storage order. I don't see anything about this >> in the "What's new" for 8.1. Has anything been done to resolve this? > > No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to > vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until > someone has a Bright Idea (tm). Any ideas on how I might I reconfigure to mitigate the issue? Separating the most offending indexes to separate drives probably isn't an option. Wes
