mlw wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > mlw wrote: > > > I don't think we will agree, we have seen different behaviors, and our > > > experiences seem to conflict. This however does not mean that either of us is > > > in error, it just may mean that we use data with very different > > > characteristics. > > > > > > This thread is kind of frustrating for me because over the last couple years I > > > have seen this problem many times and the answer is always the same, "The > > > statistics need to be improved." Tom, you and I have gone back and forth about > > > this more than once. > > > > > > > Have you tried reducing 'random_page_cost' in postgresql.conf. That > > should solve most of your problems if you would like more index scans. > > My random page cost is 1 :-)
Have you tried < 1. Seems that may work well for your case. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
