On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 11:01, Tom Lane wrote: > "Shridhar Daithankar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > 1)Is this sounds like a workable solution? > > Adding a trigger to every tuple update won't do at all. Storing the > counts in a table won't do either, as the updates on that table will > generate a huge amount of wasted space themselves (not to mention > enough contention to destroy concurrent performance). > > > 4)Is use of threads sounds portable enough? > > Threads are completely out of the question, at least if you have any > hope of seeing this code get accepted into the core distro. > > > For vacuum's purposes all that we really care to know about is the > number of obsoleted tuples in each table: committed deletes and updates, > and aborted inserts and updates all count. Furthermore, we do not need > or want a 100% reliable solution; approximate counts would be plenty > good enough.
It would be nice if it could track successful inserts, and fire off an analyze run when it changes more than 20% from what stats says. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html
