On Tue, 11 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > I suggest that we change vacuum to only move remove tuples if there is
> > more than 20% expired tuples.
>
> > When we do vacuum, we drop all indexes and recreate them.
>
> > This fixes the complaint about vacuum slowness when there are many
> > expired rows in the table. We know this is causes by excessive index
> > updates. It allows indexes to shrink (Jan pointed this out to me.) And
> > it fixes the TOAST problem with TOAST values in indexes.
>
> We can't "drop and recreate" without a solution to the relation
> versioning issue (unless you are prepared to accept a nonfunctional
> database after a failure partway through index rebuild on a system
> table). I think we should do this, but it's not all that simple...
>
> I do not see what your 20% idea has to do with this, though, nor
> why it's a good idea. If I've told the thing to vacuum I think
> it should vacuum. 20% of a big table could be a lot of megabytes,
> and I don't want some arbitrary decision in the code about whether
> I can reclaim that space or not.
I wouldn't mind seeing some automagic vacuum happen *if* >20% expired
... but don't understand the limit when I tell it to vacuum either ...
