Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> If you left seq_page_cost (which isn't mentioned here) at the default
>> value but reduced random_page_cost to 0.1, then you have
>> random_page_cost < seq_page_cost. That's probably Bad.
> ... well, it's certainly going to push the planner to believe indexscans
> are cheaper than sorts no matter what.
> The previously noted rowcount estimation problem might be a bigger issue
> in this particular case, but I agree this is a Bad Idea.
So I've set it wrong, I guess. :-)
Now I put it to:
seq_page_cost = 1
random_page_cost = 2
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Ross J. Reedstrom||Date: 2009-02-23 19:42:12|
|Subject: Re: TCP network cost|
|Previous:||From: Sergio Lopez||Date: 2009-02-23 18:29:06|
|Subject: Re: Benchmark comparing PostgreSQL, MySQL and Oracle|