Bryan Murphy <bmurphy1976@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > I tried that already, but I decided to try again in case I messed up > something last time. Here's what I ran. As you can see, it still > chooses to do a sequential scan. Am I changing the stats for those > columns correctly? I think what you should be doing is messing with the cost parameters ... and not in the direction you tried before. I gather from effective_cache_size = 12GB that you have plenty of RAM on this machine. If the tables involved are less than 1GB then it's likely that you are operating in a fully cached condition, and the default cost parameters are not set up for that. You want to be charging a lot less for page accesses relative to CPU effort. Try reducing both seq_page_cost and random_page_cost to 0.5 or even 0.1. You'll need to watch your other queries to make sure nothing gets radically worse though ... 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
