Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>) id 1TIuVO-0000wv-CJ
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:54:50 +0000
Received: from mail-pa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.220.46])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>) id 1TIuVK-0001sn-LR
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2012 04:54:47 +0000
Received: by padhz1 with SMTP id hz1so4904755pad.19
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=google.com; s=20120113;
	h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
	:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding
	:x-gm-message-state;
	bh=CoZ3jqzwOxGGen09VYax10PIB/GEubAc2eWSuj39Y1k=;
	b=JXdro277ZLXX6EiQVCpQZAvbgzEFPlu/2zbIfwKQjUMN62LruEE+S0i6O57ONDN+u0
	t1ezSIatuUj4H0uc5UN4lMRjMHH0/XosoFU7sDkX6O2L0OUwaPjQqeetac0kqa2TIJAc
	pnKFhoTkAbLoBvF/QJ5d46lvd++lMdbT9yuK8Emtrg5bRx9Vs1738NEAUz4l/kmcJ9SR
	IpM5bscSK1XS7yJ7fpJOMhoXhhjeWIRLaIC2yS0b9hV2opdNOf+zTP4A2uULxKicBXNL
	kD4IuCYCNx9xM3WNVFsFdtF7fEIsKt17ID23Ey06D6xxhaxO8amVYjFfSZQzs9AO0SZg
	LqKQ==
Received: by 10.68.200.72 with SMTP id jq8mr1392624pbc.38.1349153683238;
	Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:54:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ayaki.localdomain (office1.postnewspapers.com.au.
	[150.101.171.128])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id uz3sm317205pbc.19.2012.10.01.21.54.40
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <506A738E.8090504@ringerc.id.au>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 12:54:38 +0800
From: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:14.0) Gecko/20120717 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Colin Taylor <colin.taylor@gmail.com>
CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: A Tale of 2 algorithms
References: 
 <CAN6Zwvv_h_C7rDwRAQL_Ufb3xrF261bV0XSeyFB3oZJDsUDLTw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAN6Zwvv_h_C7rDwRAQL_Ufb3xrF261bV0XSeyFB3oZJDsUDLTw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Gm-Message-State: 
 ALoCoQlloMkRlafPRauYdZyVgj4ZCL0dbNurF4i3neiyeiCuIxXpqlYNUo4hdcbF47AKSuT9Tk2k
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201210/6
X-Sequence-Number: 47965

On 10/02/2012 05:24 AM, Colin Taylor wrote:
> My thoughts are: surely 0-row updates dont cause this or have impact on
> the vacuum. I'm still doing the same updates after all why have things
> degenerated so badly?

What exactly is bloating? Have you checked? Is it the table its self? 
One of its indexes? Something else?

--
Craig Ringer