X-Original-To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4A94758E6 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from henry.newn.cam.ac.uk (henry.newn.cam.ac.uk [131.111.204.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E27CB4758C9 for ; Sat, 19 Apr 2003 19:18:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [131.111.204.180] (helo=quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk) by henry.newn.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.13 #1) id 1971bK-0006Hr-00; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:18:30 +0100 Received: from prlw1 by quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 4.10) id 1971bK-0006lw-00; Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:18:30 +0100 Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 00:18:30 +0100 From: Patrick Welche To: Tom Lane Cc: Patrick Welche , pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: explain ? Message-ID: <20030420001830.A24853@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk> References: <20030418141905.E18170@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk> <3742.1050675633@sss.pgh.pa.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3742.1050675633@sss.pgh.pa.us> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.19i X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-38.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_10,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200304/1074 X-Sequence-Number: 41139 On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 10:20:33AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Patrick Welche writes: > > I created an index on firsttimei, vacuum full analysed, and explain showed me > > *exactly* the same thing(!) The difference being that the query is now > > lightning fast :-) > > Perhaps the vacuum got rid of a whole bunch of dead rows? I had done a vacuum full earlier.. and by dog slow versus lightning fast, I mean 1 unit of data inserted in just over an hour versus 8.6 units of data inserted in 2 mins 29 seconds(!) Well, I'm certainly not complaining! Cheers, Patrick