pasman pasma*ski<pasman.p@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > -> Index Scan using NTA_5" on "NumeryA" a > (cost=0.01..10016.75 rows=24175 width=42) (actual > time=0.132..308.018 rows=33597 loops=1)" > seq_page_cost = 0.3 > random_page_cost = 0.5 Your data is heavily cached (to be able to read 33597 rows randomly through an index in 308 ms), yet you're telling the optimizer that a random access is significantly more expensive than a sequential one. Try this in your session before running the query (with all indexes present): set seq_page_cost = 0.1; set random_page_cost = 0.1; I don't know if the data for all your queries is so heavily cached -- if so, you might want to change these settings in your postgresql.conf file. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
