Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080B564FDAB
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:41 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 46680-01
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:40 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B8564FD1A
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:31:39 -0400 (AST)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id mAAIVcIP011917;
	Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:38 -0500 (EST)
To: "Jim 'Decibel!' Nasby" <jnasby@cashnetusa.com>
cc: postgresql performance list <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Oddity with view 
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>
Comments: In-reply-to "Jim 'Decibel!' Nasby" <jnasby@cashnetusa.com>
	message dated "Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:16:36 -0600"
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2008 13:31:38 -0500
Message-ID: <11916.1226341898@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Archive-Number: 200811/68
X-Sequence-Number: 31799

"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