Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 13:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> add missing vacuum_delay_point() call in btvacuumcleanup.
> Cool and Interesting. That might explain some pretty dire performance
> numbers from last week while running auto vacuum. Performance was
> flat-lining for a while. Still need to investigate further though.
Yeah, the missing delay would result in a spike in I/O demand from
vacuum (auto or otherwise) while processing a big index, if you had
vacuum delay configured. GIST had the same problem, too.
regards, tom lane