"Joshua Marsh" <icub3d@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I have a suspision that pgsql isn't tuned to properly deal with tables > of this size. Actually, it is. Most of the planner complaints we get are from people whose tables fit in memory and they find that the default planner behavior doesn't apply real well to that case. I find your indexscan-is-faster-than-sort results pretty suspicious for large tables. Are the tables perhaps nearly in order by the dsiacctno fields? If that were the case, and the planner were missing it for some reason, these results would be plausible. BTW, what are you using for work_mem, and how does that compare to your available RAM? regards, tom lane
