Eugene Morozov <eugene@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Can anyone enlighten me? Should I set random_page_cost to 1.2 > permanently (I feel this is not a really good idea in my case)? For it to pass as many rows as it did in the time that it did, most or all of the "reads" were cached. If this is typically the case, at least for the queries for which performance is most critical, your change makes sense as a permanent setting. In fact, you might want to go even further -- there have been many reports of people getting good performance on fully-cached systems by dropping both random_page_cost and seq_page_cost to 0.1, so that the optimizer better estimates the relative cost of "disk access" versus CPU-based operations. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
