Robert Haas <robertmhaas@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you left seq_page_cost (which isn't mentioned here) at the default > value but reduced random_page_cost to 0.1, then you have > random_page_cost < seq_page_cost. That's probably Bad. ... well, it's certainly going to push the planner to believe indexscans are cheaper than sorts no matter what. The previously noted rowcount estimation problem might be a bigger issue in this particular case, but I agree this is a Bad Idea. 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
