Greg Stark wrote:
> I wonder if we should switch to keeping reltuplesperpage instead. Then a
> partial vacuum could update it by taking the average number of tuples
> per page forbthe pages it saw. Perhaps adjusting it to the weights
> average between the old value and the new value based on how many pages
> were seen.
The pages scanned by a partial vacuum isn't a random sample of pages in
the table. That would bias the reltuplesperpage value towards those
pages that are updated more.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com