Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
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.
OK, forgot that. Well I put it in originally as a way to give more
flexability to the calculation, if I want a tabled vacuumed every 100
updates, then I can set the scaling factor to 0 and the base value to
100, but maybe that's not really needed. It would simplify things if we
got rid of it.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
