Re: Vacuum looping?

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

"Steven Flatt" <steven(dot)flatt(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> The vacuum then just sat there.  What I can't understand is why it went back
> for a second pass of the pkey index?  There was nothing writing to the table
> once the vacuum began.  Is this behaviour expected?

Yes (hint: the numbers tell me what your maintenance_work_mem setting is).
You should have left it alone, probably, though there seems to be
something funny about your foo_1 index --- why was that so much slower
than the others for the first pass?

			regards, tom lane