On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 12:47:57PM -0400, Greg Stark wrote: > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > So far, the case hasn't been made for retail vacuum even ignoring the > > not-so-immutable-function risk. > > Well the desire for it comes from a very well established need for dealing > with extremely large tales with relatively small hot spots. The basic problem > being that currently the cost of vacuum is proportional to the size of the > table rather than the amount of dead space. There's no link between those > variables (at least in one direction) and any time they're far out of whack it > means excruciating pain for the DBA.
I thought the suggested solution for that was the dead space map. That way vacuum can ignore parts of the table that havn't changed... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <firstname.lastname@example.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to > litigate.
Description: Digital signature