> - Have you changed the random page cost on either installation? This is whatever the default is for both boxes (commented config file says 4.0)
> - Have both installations had VACUUM ANALYZE run recently? This is the first thing I did and didn't seem to do anything. Oddly enough I just went and did a VACUUM ANALYZE on a newly restored db on the test server and get the same query plan as production so I am now guessing something with the stats from ANALYZE are making postgres think the string index is the best bet but is clearly 1000's of times slower. > - Are the stats targets the same on both installations? If you mean default_statistics_target that is also the default (commented config file says 10) > - Do both installations have similar shared buffers, total available RAM > info, etc? The boxes have different configs as the test box isn't as big as the production on so it doesn't have as much resources available or allocated to it. I did run the query on the backup db box (exact same hardware and configuration as the production box) which gets restored from a backup periodically (how I populated the test db) and got the same results as the test box. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
