On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It looks like you are testing a case where the tables all
fit in memory. Do you expect that to be the reality for your production
use? If so, you might want to reduce random_page_cost to something
close to 1 to reflect it. If not, it'd be a good idea to test with more
realistically-sized tables before deciding what's "faster".
I am sure it at least reads some disc, because I can see peak in hd read - up to about 10-20MB/s during that query's execution.
--
GJ
