From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Jim 'Decibel!' Nasby <jnasby@cashnetusa.com>
Cc: postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Oddity with view
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:38 -0500
Message-ID: <11916.1226341898@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7B598355-07C0-450A-9914-B5979F48A5B3@cashnetusa.com>
References: <3CF0CFC1-FDBA-4A61-ACAA-6AF556C4C6F4@cashnetusa.com>
<3128.1226322412@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<7B598355-07C0-450A-9914-B5979F48A5B3@cashnetusa.com>
"Jim 'Decibel!' Nasby" <jnasby@cashnetusa.com> writes:
> How on earth did the seqscan suddenly take 4x longer? And why is the
> subquery scan then doubling the amount of time again?
Maybe the disk access is less sequential because of the need to fetch
the other table too?
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, jnasby@cashnetusa.com
Subject: Re: Oddity with view
In-Reply-To: <11916.1226341898@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox