> What about the index size? How much space do they occupy? Analyze the
> table and do this
Of course space is different. That's not the point. The point is: I'm willing
to pay the price for another HD, if that helps with performance. But it doesn't.
>
> The minimal performance difference is probably caused by the fact that
> we're dealing with int4 column (and you've used just 100000 rows, i.e.
> about 0.5MB of data) so the index is going to be tiny anyway.
I've used 10M rows, not 100000.
> Let's try to do that with varchar(32) column, just do something like this
Did it with 5M rows. Still no difference.
