Csaba Nagy <nagy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > OK, maybe that's the point... the "cost bust" given to the sequential > scan by enable_seqscan=off is not enough in this case to exceed the cost > of the index scan ? Looks that way to me. You could try setting enable_sort off as well, which will penalize the seqscan+sort plan another 100million cost units. And maybe try reducing random_page_cost to make the indexscan look cheaper. However, if there's a 100million delta between the two plans, I suspect you really really don't want the indexscan anyway ;-) regards, tom lane
