> #2
>
> Reducing the amount of scanning a vaccum must do:
>
> It would make sense that if a value of the earliest deleted chunk
> was kept in a table then vacuum would not have to scan the entire
> table in order to work, it would only need to start at the 'earliest'
> invalidated row.
>
> The utility of this (at least for us) is that we have several tables
> that will grow to hundreds of megabytes, however changes will only
> happen at the tail end (recently added rows). If we could reduce the
> amount of time spent in a vacuum state it would help us a lot.
But you have to update that every time a row is modified. Seems a
sequential scan by vacuum is fast enough.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
