Manfred Koizar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 10:08:05 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Try reducing random_page_cost

> With index scan cost being more than 25 * seq scan cost, I guess that
> - all other things held equal - even random_page_cost = 1 wouldn't
> help.

Oh, you're right, I was comparing the wrong estimated costs.  Yeah,
changing random_page_cost won't fix it.

> Or there's something wrong with correlation?

That seems like a good bet.  Andre, is this table likely to be
physically ordered by time_stamp, or nearly so?  If so, do you
expect that condition to persist, or is it just an artifact of
a test setup?

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to