On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 15:47:21 +0100,
Marc Boucher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know that, but I've some comparisons with other queries. And someone
> advised me to try "set enable_seqscan=off;". It takes 50-60% (after
> checking right now) less to use the index. Unfortunately I can't use this
> setting, the query being part of a larger query (joins), and the time
> gained on this particular index is partially lost on the joins.
Tweaking random_page_cost may help. The default is 4, which is often too
high. It is supposed to represent the relative cost of retrieving disk
blocks in a random order as compared to retrieving them in sequential
order. Lowering this value will make index scans look better. Than value
should not be lowered below 1.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
