Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> There isn't really any need for the second pass in lazy vacuum if the table >> has no indexes. > > How often does that case come up in the real world, for tables that are > large enough that you'd care about vacuum performance?
Admittedly it's not the most common scenario. But it does come up. ETL applications for example that load data, then perform some manipulation of the data before loading the data. If they have many updates to do they'll probably have to do vacuums between some of them. Arguably if you don't have any indexes on a large table it's quite likely to be *because* you're planning on doing some big updates such that it'll be faster to simply rebuild the indexes when you're done anyways. I would have had the same objection if it resulted in substantially more complex code but it was so simple that it doesn't seem like a concern. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
