On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 09:51:16PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> but I haven't really thought through the details. In any case, that
> would be extra bookkeeping needed during every transaction start,
> so I'd want to see proof of a generally-useful improvement in return.
For what it's worth, we have redesigned around this very problem,
because we had a table, vacuumed every 5 minutes, which was always >
50% dead tuples. Of course, we _were_ able to redesign around it,
but I'm not sure whether we just moved the problem to a new location.
We'll see in the upcoming weeks. (Our testing says no, but I always
figure there's _some_ strange client case I never thought of.)
A
--
----
Andrew Sullivan 204-4141 Yonge Street
Liberty RMS Toronto, Ontario Canada
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> M2P 2A8
+1 416 646 3304 x110
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
