On 29 February 2016 at 18:31, Joshua D. Drake <jd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I haven't been following this thread but did you try looking at the costs? Thanks for the response... > #seq_page_cost = 1.0 # measured on an arbitrary scale > #random_page_cost = 4.0 # same scale as above > #cpu_tuple_cost = 0.01 # same scale as above > #cpu_index_tuple_cost = 0.005 # same scale as above > #cpu_operator_cost = 0.0025 # same scale as above > #effective_cache_size = 128MB > > Especially seq_page_cost, random_page_cost and cpu_index_tuple_cost? seq_page_cost: 1 random_page_cost: 4 cpu_tuple_cost: 0.01 cpu_index_tuple_cost: 0.005 cpu_operator_cost: 0.0025 effective_cache_size: 3GB I'm not really sure what changes I could make that would make one index that's ostensibly equivalent to the other not be attractive to the planner though. I can mess with those figures but as I said before the only one that flicks the switch is to change effective_cache_size to 8GB, which makes no sense to me. Geoff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
