Wes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
What are you using for vacuum_mem? A larger value should reduce the
number of times we have to scan the indexes of
On 12/12/05 5:26 PM, "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 11:09:01PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> No. Avoiding that would require a new approach to
> >> vacuum-vs-ordinary-indexscan interlocking, so it won't happen until
> >>
"Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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).
> Plus there is a TODO to only vacu
On Mon, Dec 12, 2005 at 06:26:37PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Wes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 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 b
Wes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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
