I've been following this discussion and would like to add my 2 cents. > Unless I'm missing something major, that's completely bonkers. It > might be true that it would be a good idea to vacuum such a table more > often than we do at present, but there's no shot that we want to do it > that much more often.
This is really an important point. Too small of a threshold and a/v will constantly be vacuuming a fairly large and busy table with many indexes. If the threshold is large, say 100 or 200 million, I question if you want autovacuum to be doing the work of cleanup here? That long of a period without a autovacuum on a table means there maybe something misconfigured in your autovacuum settings. At that point aren't you just better off performing a manual vacuum and taking advantage of parallel index scans? Regards, Sami Imseih Amazon Web Services (AWS)
