On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Alternatively, it's possible that we'd be better off vacuuming the > table more often (say, autovacuum_vacuum_scale_factor=0.10 or 0.08 or > something) but only doing the index scans every once in a while when > enough dead line pointers have accumulated. Thats precisely the reason I suggested separating heap and index vacuums instead of a tight integration as we have now. If we don't spool the dead line pointers in a separate area though, we would need to make sure that index vacuum runs through the heap first to collect the dead line pointers and then remove the corresponding index pointers. We would need to also take into consideration the implications on visibility map for any such scheme to work correctly and efficiently. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
