On Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 7:30 AM Peter Coppens <peter.copp...@datylon.com> wrote:
> > > It seems odd to me to not do any basic adjustment of random_page_cost > though. It isn't a magic number that the core team know to be perfect. It > is a baseline that is likely to be quite different for each use case and > server config. While there are no hard and fast rules and absolute right > answers, it seems prudent to at least follow the advice of the community > and lower it a ways if storage is ssd style and/or cache hits are quite > high. > Ic. Well I don’t mine experimenting with it, and will certainly remember > it next time. I guess I was demotivated because I read lot’s of warnings > but these might have been about disabling sequential scans and not about > page cost settings. > Ah yes. Don't handicap the system by removing a join or scan type. However, simply customizing costs that are used to decide between path A and path B when planning how to execute queries, that can definitely can be helpful to get better plans overall. Good luck! >
