On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 13:34, Tom Lane wrote:
> Csaba Nagy <nagy@ecircle-ag.com> writes:
> > OK, maybe that's the point... the "cost bust" given to the sequential
> > scan by enable_seqscan=off is not enough in this case to exceed the cost
> > of the index scan ?
>
> Looks that way to me. You could try setting enable_sort off as well,
> which will penalize the seqscan+sort plan another 100million cost units.
> And maybe try reducing random_page_cost to make the indexscan look
> cheaper. However, if there's a 100million delta between the two plans,
> I suspect you really really don't want the indexscan anyway ;-)
I imagine the followup post:
So, I've had this query running for six weeks now, and...
