Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> So what you are proposing above amounts to setting scale factor = 0.05.
> The threshold is unimportant -- in the case of a big table it matters
> not if it's 0 or 1000, it will be almost irrelevant in calculations. In
> the case of small tables, then the table will be vacuumed in almost
> every iteration if the threshold is 0, which is fine because the table
> is small anyway. So why not let the threshold be 0 and be done with it?
For very small tables, setting a threshold of 0 could mean a vacuum
after every single row update (or every other row). I think that is just
burning cycles. What about a threshold of 10 or 50, to have at least
some sanity limit? Even though the cost of vacuum of a small table is
low, it is still not free, IMHO, no?
Best Regards
Michael Paesold
