Re: Plans for solving the VACUUM problem

Tom Lane wrote:
> 
I love it all. 
I agree that vacuum should be an optional function that really packs tables.

I also like the idea of a vacuum that runs in the background and does not too
badly affect operation.

My only suggestion would be to store some information in the statistics about
whether or not, and how bad, a table needs to be vacuumed. In a scheduled
background environment, the tables that need it most should get it most often.
Often times many tables never need to be vacuumed.

Also, it would be good to be able to update the statistics without doing a
vacuum, i.e. rather than having to vacuum to analyze, being able to analyze
without a vacuum.