Hi Scot, scott.marlowe said: > So, to start with, try changing random page cost. you can change it for As "unrealistic" as it should be, I need <1 before Postgres takes the bait. Initialy 0.7, to be exact, but later It also worked at a little higher setting of 1. I have given PG 96Mb of memory to play with, so likely all my data will be in cache. So no very fast disk (6MB/sec reads), but loads of RAM.
Should I try tweaking any of the other parameters? > performance of seq versus index. you'll often find that a query that > screams when the caches are full of your data is quite slow when the cache > is empty. True, but as this single query is going to be the work horse of the web service I am developing, it is likely all data will always be in memory, even if I'd have to stick several gigs of ram in. Thanks, Bas. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
