On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:07:19 -0600 (MDT), "scott.marlowe"
<scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> wrote:
>I'd certainly be willing to do some testing on my own data with them.
Great!
>Gotta patch?
Not yet.
> I've found that when the planner misses, sometimes it misses
>by HUGE amounts on large tables, and I have been running random page cost
>at 1 lately, as well as running cpu_index_cost at 1/10th the default
>setting to get good results.
May I ask for more information? What are your settings for
effective_cache_size and shared_buffers? And which version are you
running?
Servus
Manfred