Alex Stapleton <alexs(at)advfn(dot)com> 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