On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Shaun Thomas <stho...@peak6.com> wrote: > If not, it seems like a valid configurable. We set our random_page_cost to > 1.5 once the DB was backed by NVRAM. I could see that somehow influencing > precedence of a backwards index scan. But even then, SSDs and their ilk > react more like RAM than even a large RAID... so should there be a setting > that passes such useful info to the planner?
Forgive the naive question... but... Aren't all index scans, forward or backward, random IO? -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
