On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Josh Kupershmidt <schmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hrm, this is interesting. I set up a test table with 5M rows like so:
Such discussions are for the planner itself, right? The sorted cluster patch uses the existing planner's costing model, so we can discuss the clustering feature and the improvement of planner in different patches. > My seq_page_cost and random_page_cost were left at the defaults for > these tests. Oddly, I tried turning seq_page_cost down to 0.01 and > EXPLAIN ANALYZE told me that an index scan was still being chosen. Is > there maybe some other setting I'm forgetting? It might come from effective_cache_size. We consider the value only in the index scans. We can also use the effective cache in addition to work_mem for tapes used by disk sorting, but we don't consider the effective cache for now. -- Itagaki Takahiro -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
