Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> wrote:
>> Try reducing random_page_cost
> With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
> - all other things held equal - even random_page_cost = 1 wouldn't
> help.
Oh, you're right, I was comparing the wrong estimated costs. Yeah,
changing random_page_cost won't fix it.
> Or there's something wrong with correlation?
That seems like a good bet. Andre, is this table likely to be
physically ordered by time_stamp, or nearly so? If so, do you
expect that condition to persist, or is it just an artifact of
a test setup?
regards, tom lane
