Tom Lane wrote: > When benchmarking with data sets considerably larger than available > buffer cache, I rather doubt that small random_page_cost would be a > good idea. Still, you might as well experiment to see.
>From experience, I know the difference in response time can be huge when postgres >incorrectly chooses a sequential scan over an index scan. In practice, do people experience as great a difference when postgres incorrectly chooses an index scan over a sequential scan? My intuition is that the speed difference is a lot less for incorrectly choosing an index scan. If this is the case, it would be safer to chose a small value for random_page_cost. George Essig ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match