On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 12:04:07PM -0400, Stephen Bowman wrote: > > Clearly it needs to use the index =) Indeed -- now to figure out why the estimates for index scans are so high. The row count estimates are almost spot-on, so that's not it. What are your settings for the following configuration variables? shared_buffers random_page_cost effective_cache_size cpu_tuple_cost cpu_index_tuple_cost How much RAM do you have? Have you set shared_buffers and effective_cache_size accordingly? The default values are pretty low for most modern equipment; see the following for tips on choosing appropriate values: http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList/ You mentioned that you've analyzed the table, but have you also vacuumed it recently? BTW, I should have mentioned earlier that this thread might be on-topic in pgsql-performance. -- Michael Fuhr http://www.fuhr.org/~mfuhr/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
