Greg Stark wrote:
> The more I think about this vacuum i/o problem, the more I think we have it
> wrong. The added i/o from vacuum really ought not be any worse than a single
> full table scan. And there are probably the occasional query doing full table
> scans already in those systems.
>
> For the folks having this issue, if you run "select count(*) from bigtable" is
> there as big a hit in transaction performance? On the other hand, does the
> vacuum performance hit kick in right away? Or only after it's been running for
> a bit?
The vacuum cost is the same of a full scan table ( select count(*) ) ?
Why not do a sort of "vacuum" if a scan table happen ( during a simple
select that invole a full scan table for example )?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
