Tom Lane wrote:
> This is completely untrue. Increasing vacuum_mem will likely make
> things faster on large tables (by avoiding the need for multiple passes
> over the indexes). It will not change the end result though.
I can attest to that, based on very recent empirical evidence. On a 28
million row table, I saw something like 33% speed-up in going from 256MB
to 320MB for vacuum_mem.
Joe
