>
> I agree the estimates are damn precise in this case (actually the
> estimates are exact). The problem is the planner thinks the seq scan is
> about 30% cheaper than the bitmap index scan.
>
> I guess you could poke the planner towards the bitmap scan by lowering
> the random_page_cost (the default value is 4, I'd say lowering it to 2
> should do the trick).
The numbers that I gave was after setting random_page_cost = 1.0 After
this I don't know what to do.
-Sushant.
