Re: VARCHAR -vs- CHAR: huge performance difference?

> Or do I just need to vacuum more often? I _did_ try a vacuum before
> asking the list for help, but it didn't give any improvement (just a
> vacuum analyze).

"vacuum analyse" allows dead space to be re-used, but doesn't compact the
table, you need "vacuum analyse full" for that.

I'm not sure how the free space map relates to this, maybe someone can shed
some light, but if it is too small, not all dead rows can be re-used (as I
understand it). If your table (or even the DB in general) is updated alot,
the default FSM size that comes with 7.3 may not be enough to ensure the
most efficient space reclamation. Last time I looked the docs were a little
hazy on that.