Jeff Davis wrote:
Is it overestimating the cost of using indexes or underestimating the cost of a seq scan, or both? Maybe explain with the 0.1 setting will help?
If enable_seqscan is off, and cost is still set to 100000000, it could be that it's quite simply forcibly underestimating the cost of a seqscan in this case.
If enable_secscan was off for the mentioned plan, it'd be interesting to see if things would be saner with seqscans enabled, and a more reasonable random page cost. If more 'sane' values still produce the desired plan, it might be better for other plans etc.
Terje
