Alex Stapleton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is this advisable? Only if your database is small enough that you expect it to remain fully cached in RAM. In that case random_page_cost = 1 does in fact describe the performance you expect Postgres to see.
People occasionally use values for random_page_cost that are much smaller than physical reality would suggest, but I think this is mainly a workaround for deficiencies elsewhere in the planner cost models. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq