Re: New GUC autovacuum_max_threshold ?

I've been following this discussion and would like to add my
2 cents.

> Unless I'm missing something major, that's completely bonkers. It
> might be true that it would be a good idea to vacuum such a table more
> often than we do at present, but there's no shot that we want to do it
> that much more often. 

This is really an important point.

Too small of a threshold and a/v will constantly be vacuuming a fairly large 
and busy table with many indexes. 

If the threshold is large, say 100 or 200 million, I question if you want autovacuum 
to be doing the work of cleanup here?  That long of a period without a autovacuum 
on a table means there maybe something  misconfigured in your autovacuum settings. 

At that point aren't you just better off performing a manual vacuum and
taking advantage of parallel index scans?

Regards,

Sami Imseih
Amazon Web Services (AWS)