Hi Kevin Well, you're right :-) But my use cases are un-specific "by design" since I'm using FTS as a general purpose function.
So I still propose to enhance the planner too as Tom Lane and your colleague suggest based on repeated similar complaints [1]. Yours, Stefan [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ca+tgmozgqbeu2kn305hwds+axw7yp0yn9vzwbsbwa8unst+...@mail.gmail.com 2013/7/29 Kevin Grittner <kgri...@ymail.com>: > Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Finally, setting random_page_cost to 1 helps also - but I don't >> like this setting neither. > > Well, you should learn to like whichever settings best model your > actual costs given your level of caching and your workload. ;-) > FWIW, I have found page costs less volatile and easier to tune > with cpu_tuple_cost increased. I just always start by bumping > that to 0.03. > > -- > Kevin Grittner > EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
