On 02/29/2016 10:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
Just as a continuation of this, I can set effective_cache_size to 64MB and it will still use the single-column index, but PG flatly refuses to use the multicolumn index without effective_cache_size being an unfeasibly large number (2x the RAM in the machine, in this case).
I haven't been following this thread but did you try looking at the costs? #seq_page_cost = 1.0 # measured on an arbitrary scale #random_page_cost = 4.0 # same scale as above #cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # same scale as above #cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005 # same scale as above #cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # same scale as above #effective_cache_size = 128MB Especially seq_page_cost, random_page_cost and cpu_index_tuple_cost? JD
Geoff
-- Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/ +1-503-667-4564 PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development. Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
