The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hannu Krosing) wrote: > Christopher Browne kirjutas E, 03.11.2003 kell 02:15: >> Well, actually, the case where it _would_ be troublesome would be >> where there was a combination of huge tables needing vacuuming and >> smaller ones that are _heavily_ updated (e.g. - account balances), >> where pg_autovacuum might take so long on some big tables that it >> wouldn't get to the smaller ones often enough. > > Can't one just run a _separate_ VACUUM on those smaller tables ?
Yes, but that defeats the purpose of having a daemon that tries to manage this all for you. -- (reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc")) http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html "...once can imagine the government's problem. This is all pretty magical stuff to them. If I were trying to terminate the operations of a witch coven, I'd probably seize everything in sight. How would I tell the ordinary household brooms from the getaway vehicles?" -- John Perry Barlow ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html