On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:06:27AM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> 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.
Added to TODO:
Improve autovacuum tuning
--
Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
