Thanks, we'll give these a try. Tim
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov > wrote: > Timothy Garnett <tgarn...@panjiva.com> wrote: > > > We'd still be interested in other suggestions for convincing the > > query planner not to pick the bad plan in this case > > You could try boosting cpu_tuple_cost. I've seen some evidence that > the default number is a bit low in general, so it wouldn't > necessarily be bad to try your whole load with a higher setting. If > that doesn't work you could set it for the one query. If that > setting alone doesn't do it, you could either decrease both page > cost numbers or multiply all the cpu numbers (again, probably > boosting cpu_tuple_cost relative to the others). > > -Kevin >
