Julien Cigar <jcigar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I tried to play on the various cost settings but it's doesn't > change anything, except setting random_page_cost to 1 (which will > lead to bad plans for other queries, so not a solution) Yeah, you clearly don't have the active portion of your database fully cached, so you don't want random_page_cost to go as low as seq_page_cost. Here's one suggestion to try: random_page_cost = 2 cpu_tuple_cost = 0.05 I have found that combination to work well for me when the level of caching is about where you're seeing it. I am becoming increasingly of the opinion that the default for cpu_tuple_cost should be higher than 0.01. Please let us know whether that helps. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
