ktm@xxxxxxxx wrote: > You have the sequential_page_cost = 1 which is better than or equal > to the random_page_cost in all of your examples. It sounds like you > need a sequential_page_cost of 5, 10, 20 or more. The goal should be to set the cost factors so that they model actual costs for you workload in your environment. In what cases have you seen the sequential scan of a large number of adjacent pages from disk take longer than randomly reading the same number of pages from disk? (I would love to see the bonnie++ number for that, if you have them.) -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
