> The difference between cost estimation and actual cost of your queries, under relatively precise row estimates, seems to suggest your e_c_s or r_p_c aren't a reflection of your hardware's performance.
Wow, so tweaking these has fixed it and then some. It now picks a slightly different plan than the 'fast' one previously: New super fast version with e_c_s 6GB->88Gb and r_p_c 2-> 1 (s_p_c 1->0.5): http://explain.depesz.com/s/ECk For reference: > Slow version with bitmapscan enabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/6I7 > Fast version with bitmapscan disabled: http://explain.depesz.com/s/4MWG -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
