On Fri, 18 Jul 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Adjusting the cpu_tuple_cost to 0.042 got the planner to choose the index.
>
> > Doesn't sound very good and it will most likely make other queries slower.
>
> Seems like a reasonable approach to me --- certainly better than setting
> random_page_cost to physically nonsensical values.
Hehe, just before this letter there was talk about changing
random_page_cost. I kind of responed that 0.042 is not a good random page
cost. But now of course I can see that it says cpu_tuple_cost :-)
Sorry for adding confusion.
--
/Dennis