X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0412A9FA2C7 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 17:30:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24285-04 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 17:30:46 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E5E9FA1B0 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 17:30:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k41KUiKF008045; Mon, 1 May 2006 16:30:44 -0400 (EDT) To: Nolan Cafferky cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Cluster vs. non-cluster query planning In-reply-to: <44566612.8020709@rbsinteractive.com> References: <445644F9.2020708@rbsinteractive.com> <44566612.8020709@rbsinteractive.com> Comments: In-reply-to Nolan Cafferky message dated "Mon, 01 May 2006 12:48:34 -0700" Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 16:30:44 -0400 Message-ID: <8044.1146515444@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/20 X-Sequence-Number: 18807 Nolan Cafferky 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