2016-08-18 21:40 GMT+03:00 Victor Yegorov <vyego...@gmail.com>: > Oh, that's interesting. I was under impression, that r_p_c reflects IO > speed, like — make it smaller for SSDs. > To make this query prefer BitmapScan, I need to bump r_p_c to 5.8. And 6.0 > makes it switch to SeqScan. >
I was looking into different databases and queries around — many of them prefers to use indexes over SeqScans, even if index is not a "perfect" match, like using index on the 2-nd column of the index (like searching for `rev` via IndexScan over `id,rev` index). I need to bump r_p_c to 6 (at least) to make things shift towards BtimapScans, and I feel uncertain about such increase. This makes me thinking — can this situation be an indication, that tables are bloated? (I've performed reindexing recently, touching majority of indexes around, while tables were not touched.) -- Victor Y. Yegorov
