Re: surprising behavior or nothing to see here?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com>
Cc: Postgresql General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: surprising behavior or nothing to see here?
Date: 2012-10-03 18:50:28
Message-ID: 19018.1349290228@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> writes:
> 4. What might cause autovacuum analyze to make an index perform worse immediately, when a manual vacuum analyze does not have the same affect? And I'm not talking about changing things so the planner doesn't use the index, but rather, having the index actually take longer.

Dunno about the replication angle, but would this have been a GIN index?
I'm wondering about possible interference with flushing of its
pending-insert queue (the FASTUPDATE stuff).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Wolf Schwurack 2012-10-03 18:50:51 Re: [Pgbouncer-general] Again, problem with pgbouncer
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-10-03 18:46:31 Re: Postgres will not start due to corrupt index