On Monday 08 September 2003 17:04, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> It looks to me like throwing a plain VACUUM into your poller cycle
> (or possibly VACUUM ANALYZE depending on how fast the table's stats
> change) would solve your problems nicely.
>
I compled the pg_autovacuum daemon from 7.4beta sources as S
Hope that you don't find it too distracting, I decided to answer to emails in
one go.
On Saturday 06 September 2003 03:05, Tom Lane wrote:
> indexscans. If you've also got sequential-scan queries, and you're
> doing many zillion updates between vacuums, the answer is to vacuum
> more ofte
