On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:07:19 -0600 (MDT), "scott.marlowe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd certainly be willing to do some testing on my own data with them.
Great! >Gotta patch? Not yet. > I've found that when the planner misses, sometimes it misses >by HUGE amounts on large tables, and I have been running random page cost >at 1 lately, as well as running cpu_index_cost at 1/10th the default >setting to get good results. May I ask for more information? What are your settings for effective_cache_size and shared_buffers? And which version are you running? Servus Manfred ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
