pasman pasma*ski<pasman(dot)p(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> -> Index Scan using NTA_5" on "NumeryA" a
> (cost=0.01..10016.75 rows=24175 width=42) (actual
> time=0.132..308.018 rows=33597 loops=1)"
> seq_page_cost = 0.3
> random_page_cost = 0.5
Your data is heavily cached (to be able to read 33597 rows randomly
through an index in 308 ms), yet you're telling the optimizer that a
random access is significantly more expensive than a sequential one.
Try this in your session before running the query (with all indexes
present):
set seq_page_cost = 0.1;
set random_page_cost = 0.1;
I don't know if the data for all your queries is so heavily cached
-- if so, you might want to change these settings in your
postgresql.conf file.
-Kevin