David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm hoping someone can shed some light on these results.
Not without a lot more detail on how you *got* the results. What
exactly did you do to force the various plan choices? (I see some
ridiculous choices of indexscans, for instance, suggesting improper use
of enable_seqscan in some cases.) And what's the "cache rows" and "disk
rows" stuff, and how do you know that what you were measuring is
actually what you think it is? I have zero confidence in
Windows-atop-ATA as a platform for measuring disk-related behaviors,
because I don't think you can control or even know what caching is
going on.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(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
