Re: surprising behavior or nothing to see here?

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