On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:08:30PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> > Short version: is it optimal for vacuum to always populate reltuples
> > with live rows + dead rows?
>
> If we didn't do that, it would tend to encourage the use of seqscans on
> tables with lots of dead rows, which is probably a bad thing.

So then why does vacuum do that? ISTM that it makes more sense for it to
act the same as analyze and only count live rows.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster