On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 3:13 AM, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> Josh's concern is about autovacuum causing lots of stats churn, which is
> understandable, we don't want it constantly rescanning a table
I don't think rescanning the table is a big concern. autovacuum will
only scan as often as it feels like in the first place and these are
by definition small tables anyways.
Josh's stated concern was about the churn in the stats table. That
could cause extra vacuums on the stats table which could be a fairly
substantial table. Hopefully HOT updates and the visibility bitmap
would protect against that being too bad though.
--
greg