On 07/24/2015 11:06 AM, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 7/23/15 5:18 AM, Thakur, Sameer wrote: >> Hello, >>> >logged > 25 times >> Sorry, it is much lower at 7 times. Does not change overall point though > > I think it's related to the problem of figuring out how many dead tuples > you expect to find in the overall heap, which you need to do to have any > hope of this being a comprehensive estimate.
What about just reporting scanned pages/total pages ? That would be easy and cheap to track. It would result in some herky-jerky "progress", but would still be an improvement over the feedback we don't have now.