Matthew T. O'Connor wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > >Actually, on a table small enough for the thresholds to kick in it's > >going to be extremely fast to vacuum anyway, and the table is probably > >either static or changing very rapidly. I'm wondering if maybe they > >should just default to 0? > > > I assume you are suggesting that the base value be 0? Well for one > thing if the table doesn't have any rows that will result in constant > vacuuming of that table, so it needs to be greater than 0. For a small > table, say 100 rows, there usually isn'tn much performance impact if the > table if 50% dead space, so I think the base values you suggest are OK, > but they shouldn't be 0.
Actually Tom suggested some time ago that we should get rid of the base value completely, i.e. make it 0 forever. A row with 0 tables would not show any activity in pgstats, so it would not be vacuumed constantly. Only once after it's truncated. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
