Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>
>> I assume you are suggesting that the base value be 0? Well for one
>> thing if the table doesn't have any rows that will result in constant
>> vacuuming of that table, so it needs to be greater than 0. For a small
>> table, say 100 rows, there usually isn'tn much performance impact if the
>> table if 50% dead space, so I think the base values you suggest are OK,
>> but they shouldn't be 0.
>>
>
> Actually Tom suggested some time ago that we should get rid of the base
> value completely, i.e. make it 0 forever.
>
> A row with 0 tables would not show any activity in pgstats, so it would
> not be vacuumed constantly. Only once after it's truncated.
OK, forgot that. Well I put it in originally as a way to give more
flexability to the calculation, if I want a tabled vacuumed every 100
updates, then I can set the scaling factor to 0 and the base value to
100, but maybe that's not really needed. It would simplify things if we
got rid of it.
