On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:08:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > "Greg Sabino Mullane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Short version: is it optimal for vacuum to always populate reltuples > > with live rows + dead rows? > > If we didn't do that, it would tend to encourage the use of seqscans on > tables with lots of dead rows, which is probably a bad thing.
So then why does vacuum do that? ISTM that it makes more sense for it to act the same as analyze and only count live rows. -- Jim Nasby [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
