Nolan Cafferky <Nolan.Cafferky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
