On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:47:57PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>
> > So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the
> > not-so-immutable-function risk.
>
> Well the desire for it comes from a very well established need for dealing
> with extremely large tales with relatively small hot spots. The basic problem
> being that currently the cost of vacuum is proportional to the size of the
> table rather than the amount of dead space. There's no link between those
> variables (at least in one direction) and any time they're far out of whack it
> means excruciating pain for the DBA.
I thought the suggested solution for that was the dead space map. That
way vacuum can ignore parts of the table that havn't changed...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
