On Mon, Nov 06, 2006 at 09:50:53PM +0000, Simon Riggs wrote: > - There are specific issues with the optimizer's ability to understand > dead row numbers, which can in some cases lead to SeqScan plans that are > inappropriate when tables grow because of updates. This is a red-herring > that can lead to people thinking the situation is worse than it is; that > needs fixing, but the core issues mentioned above remain.
I don't disagree with much of what you say, but I'm slightly concerned about the wave-away answer that you give here. In my experience on high-update tables -- especially ones with the ones with few rows, but lots of open transactions over the lifetime of the row -- accurate understanding of dead rows would be a _dramatic_ improvement (perhaps at least as significant as the improvement being discussed). That said, I'm not opposed to the line you're taking. I just don't want this problem to sink forever, because it's a big problem. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant- garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism. --Brad Holland ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org