mlw wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > > I don't think we will agree, we have seen different behaviors, and our
> > > experiences seem to conflict. This however does not mean that either of us is
> > > in error, it just may mean that we use data with very different
> > > characteristics.
> > >
> > > This thread is kind of frustrating for me because over the last couple years I
> > > have seen this problem many times and the answer is always the same, "The
> > > statistics need to be improved." Tom, you and I have gone back and forth about
> > > this more than once.
> > >
> >
> > Have you tried reducing 'random_page_cost' in postgresql.conf. That
> > should solve most of your problems if you would like more index scans.
>
> My random page cost is 1 :-)
Have you tried < 1. Seems that may work well for your case.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
