Alex Stapleton <alexs@advfn.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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq