From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nolan Cafferky <Nolan.Cafferky@rbsinteractive.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:30:44 -0400
Message-ID: <8044.1146515444@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44566612.8020709@rbsinteractive.com>
References: <445644F9.2020708@rbsinteractive.com>
<44566612.8020709@rbsinteractive.com>
Nolan Cafferky <Nolan.Cafferky@rbsinteractive.com> writes:
> After some more digging on the mailing list, I found some comments on
> effective_cache_size. Bringing it up from the default of 1000 does pust
> the estimated cost for the index scan below that of the sequential scan,
> but not by much.
The first-order knob for tuning indexscan vs seqscan costing is
random_page_cost. What have you got that set to?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, Nolan.Cafferky@rbsinteractive.com
Subject: Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning
In-Reply-To: <8044.1146515444@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox