"Kynn Jones" <kynnjo@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So it seems like turning off ENABLE_SEQSCAN is the way to go. Try reducing random_page_cost a bit instead. Also, have you got effective_cache_size set to something that's realistic for your machine? One problem with this test is that your smaller tables probably fit in memory whereas the big ones may not, so it's not a given that your test accurately reflects how the real query will go down. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
