X-Original-To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Received: from spampd.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17EAE475ECE for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:20:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C08D475458 for ; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:20:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h3IEKXU6003743; Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:20:33 -0400 (EDT) To: Patrick Welche Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org Subject: Re: explain ? In-reply-to: <20030418141905.E18170@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk> References: <20030418141905.E18170@quartz.newn.cam.ac.uk> Comments: In-reply-to Patrick Welche message dated "Fri, 18 Apr 2003 14:19:05 +0100" Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:20:33 -0400 Message-ID: <3742.1050675633@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-32.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT, REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES autolearn=ham version=2.50 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.50 (1.173-2003-02-20-exp) X-Archive-Number: 200304/1042 X-Sequence-Number: 41107 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? regards, tom lane