Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The very first thing to check is effective_cache_size and to set it to
>> a reasonable value.
> Actually, effective_cache_size has no impact on costing except when
> planning a nested loop with inner index scan. So, a query against a
> single table can never benefit from changing that setting.
That's flat out wrong. It does affect the cost estimate for plain
indexscan (and bitmap indexscan) plans.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
