Thanks You, I changed the random_page_cost to 2 and the query plan has changed and speeds up. I will check the other queries but I think I will leave it at this value. Thank you again. Kaloyan Iliev Robert Haas wrote: On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:If the other plan does turn out to be faster (and I agree with Tom that there is no guarantee of that), then one thing to check is whether seq_page_cost and random_page_cost are set too high. If the data is all cached, the default values of 4 and 1 are three orders of magnitude too large, and they should also be set to equal rather than unequal values.Tweaking the cost parameters to suit your local situation is the recommended cure for planner misjudgments; but I'd recommend against changing them on the basis of only one example. You could easily find yourself making other cases worse. Get a collection of common queries for your app and look at the overall effects.No argument, and well said -- just trying to point out that the default values really are FAR too high for people with databases that fit in OS cache. ...Robert |