Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matthew T. O'Connor" <matthew@zeut.net> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 2. I only bothered to insert delays in the processing loops of plain
> >> VACUUM and btree index cleanup. VACUUM FULL and cleanup of non-btree
> >> indexes aren't done yet.
> >>
> > I thought we didn't want the delay in vacuum full since it locks things
> > down, we want vacuum full to finish ASAP. As opposed to normal vacuum
> > which would be fired by the autovacuum daemon.
>
> My thought was that it'd be up to the user to set vacuum_page_delay
> appropriately for what he is doing. It might or might not ever make
> sense to use a nonzero delay in VACUUM FULL, but the facility should be
> there. (Since plain and full VACUUM share the same index cleanup code,
> it would take some klugery to implement a policy of "no delays for
> VACUUM FULL" anyway.)
>
> Best practice would likely be to leave the default vacuum_page_delay at
> zero, and have the autovacuum daemon set a nonzero value for vacuums it
> issues.
What is the advantage of delaying vacuum per page vs. just doing vacuum
less frequently?
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
