wrote:
>>
>> - cost parameter calibration: random_page_cost = 92.89
>>
>
> This demands some explanation and raises question of value of seq_page_cost
> parameter -- I don't see anything about it your mail.
seq_page_cost was set to 1.0 (default), and I explained the reason about
random_p
wrote:
>
> More knowledgeable people are sure to reply in more detail!
>
> However, they would probably appreciate it if you can run with 9.4.5
> (the latest released version). Running it with the beta of 9.5 would be
> a bonus!
>
> Note that I don't know enough to say for sure that later ve
wrote:
>>
>> We guessed the cause of this error would be in the cost model of Postgres,
>> and investigated the source code of optimizer, and we found the cause of
>> this problem. It was in the index cost estimation process. On scanning
>> inner table, if loop count is greater than 1, its I/O co
Robert Haas wrote:
>
> - If we're sequential scanning a small table, let's say less than 1/4
> of shared_buffers, which is the point where synchronized scans kick
> in, then assume the data is coming from shared_buffers.
> - If we're scanning a medium-sized table, let's say less than
> effectiv
