"Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The vacuum then just sat there. What I can't understand is why it went back
> for a second pass of the pkey index? There was nothing writing to the table
> once the vacuum began. Is this behaviour expected?
Yes (hint: the numbers tell me what your maintenance_work_mem setting is).
You should have left it alone, probably, though there seems to be
something funny about your foo_1 index --- why was that so much slower
than the others for the first pass?
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Jim C. Nasby||Date: 2007-07-28 16:36:24|
|Subject: Re: Vacuum looping?|
|Previous:||From: Tilmann Singer||Date: 2007-07-28 12:52:36|
|Subject: Re: Slow query with backwards index scan|