Michael Loftis <mloftis(at)wgops(dot)com> writes:
> Reading all of this discussion lately about how the planner seems to
> prefer seqscan's in alot of places where indexes would be better starts
> making me wonder if some of the assumptions or cals made to figure costs
> are wrong...
Could well be. The sources are open, feel free to take a look ...
src/backend/optimizer/path/costsize.c is the epicenter ...
regards, tom lane