mlw wrote: > I don't think we will agree, we have seen different behaviors, and our > experiences seem to conflict. This however does not mean that either of us is > in error, it just may mean that we use data with very different > characteristics. > > This thread is kind of frustrating for me because over the last couple years I > have seen this problem many times and the answer is always the same, "The > statistics need to be improved." Tom, you and I have gone back and forth about > this more than once. >
Have you tried reducing 'random_page_cost' in postgresql.conf. That should solve most of your problems if you would like more index scans. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 853-3000 + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
