> > I agree the estimates are damn precise in this case (actually the > estimates are exact). The problem is the planner thinks the seq scan is > about 30% cheaper than the bitmap index scan. > > I guess you could poke the planner towards the bitmap scan by lowering > the random_page_cost (the default value is 4, I'd say lowering it to 2 > should do the trick).
The numbers that I gave was after setting random_page_cost = 1.0 After this I don't know what to do. -Sushant. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
