Nolan Cafferky <Nolan(dot)Cafferky(at)rbsinteractive(dot)com> writes:
> After some more digging on the mailing list, I found some comments on
> effective_cache_size. Bringing it up from the default of 1000 does pust
> the estimated cost for the index scan below that of the sequential scan,
> but not by much.
The first-order knob for tuning indexscan vs seqscan costing is
random_page_cost. What have you got that set to?
regards, tom lane