On 02/29/2016 10:05 AM, Geoff Winkless wrote:
> Just as a continuation of this, I can set effective_cache_size to 64MB
> and it will still use the single-column index, but PG flatly refuses
> to use the multicolumn index without effective_cache_size being an
> unfeasibly large number (2x the RAM in the machine, in this case).
I haven't been following this thread but did you try looking at the costs?
#seq_page_cost = 1.0 # measured on an arbitrary scale
#random_page_cost = 4.0 # same scale as above
#cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # same scale as above
#cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005 # same scale as above
#cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # same scale as above
#effective_cache_size = 128MB
Especially seq_page_cost, random_page_cost and cpu_index_tuple_cost?
JD
>
> Geoff
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc. http://the.postgres.company/
+1-503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
Everyone appreciates your honesty, until you are honest with them.