Sushant Sinha <sushant...@gmail.com> writes:
>> 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.
I think part of the issue here is that the @@ operator is expensive,
and so evaluating it once per row is expensive, but the pg_proc.procost
setting for it doesn't adequately reflect that. You could experiment
with tweaking that setting ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
