On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:24 PM, Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Scott Marlowe <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael Monnerie
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> vacuum_cost_delay = 0
>>>> That was the trick for me. It was set to 250(ms), where it took 5 hours
>>>> for a vacuum to run. Now it takes 5-15 minutes.
>>
>>> Wow!!! 250 ms is HUGE in the scheme of vacuum cost delay. even 10ms
>>> is usually plenty to slow down vacuum enough to keep it out of your
>>> way and double to quadruple your vacuum times.
>>
>> I wonder whether we ought to tighten the allowed range of
>> vacuum_cost_delay. The upper limit is 1000ms at the moment;
>> but that's clearly much higher than is useful, and it seems
>> to encourage people to pick silly values ...
>
> I agree. I can't imagine using a number over 50 or so.
Although I'd probably just emit a log warning for anything over that
saying that values over 50 will result in very very long vacuum times.
