On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > Josh's concern is about autovacuum causing lots of stats churn, which is > understandable, we don't want it constantly rescanning a table
I don't think rescanning the table is a big concern. autovacuum will only scan as often as it feels like in the first place and these are by definition small tables anyways. Josh's stated concern was about the churn in the stats table. That could cause extra vacuums on the stats table which could be a fairly substantial table. Hopefully HOT updates and the visibility bitmap would protect against that being too bad though. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
