Re: vacuum_cost_delay & VACUUM holding locks on GIST indexes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: vacuum_cost_delay & VACUUM holding locks on GIST indexes
Date: 2005-03-01 04:25:16
Message-ID: 13436.1109651116@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Tom Lane wrote:
>> You could shorten the intervals for which the lock is held by reducing
>> vacuum_mem, but this might be counterproductive overall.

> Does this work?

[ thinks about it... ] No, probably not; sorry for the misinformation.

Cutting vacuum_mem will reduce the number of index tuples that are to be
deleted during any one scan of the index. But if the index is large,
it's probably the scanning time and not the deletion time that is dominant.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sebastian Böck 2005-03-01 07:24:54 Re: multicolumn GIST index question
Previous Message Michael Fuhr 2005-03-01 04:12:22 Re: Is any limitations in PostgreSQL?