Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
If you left seq_page_cost (which isn't mentioned here) at the default
value but reduced random_page_cost to 0.1, then you have
random_page_cost < seq_page_cost. That's probably Bad.
... well, it's certainly going to push the planner to believe indexscans
are cheaper than sorts no matter what.
The previously noted rowcount estimation problem might be a bigger issue
in this particular case, but I agree this is a Bad Idea.
So I've set it wrong, I guess. :-)
Now I put it to:
seq_page_cost = 1
random_page_cost = 2
Regards,
--
Kouber Saparev
http://kouber.saparev.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
