mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com> writes:
> That is the difference, in another post Tom said he could not get
> excited about 10.9 second execution time over a 7.96 execution
> time. Damn!!! I would. That is wrong.
Sure. Show us how to make the planner's estimates 2x more accurate
(on average) than they are now, and I'll get excited too.
But forcing indexscan to be chosen over seqscan does not count as
making it more accurate. (If you think it does, then you don't
need to be in this thread at all; set enable_seqscan = 0 and
stop bugging us ;-))
regards, tom lane
