Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5993A64FCF6
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:07:06 -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 01710-03
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:07:03 -0400 (AST)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from ulysses.lattica.com (lattica.com [204.14.19.114])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F8A64FCB1
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 13:07:03 -0400 (AST)
Received: from localhost (ulysses.lattica.com [127.0.0.1])
	by ulysses.lattica.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 445D07383DD;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:07:02 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at lattica.com
Received: from ulysses.lattica.com ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (ulysses.lattica.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 3ZD1j1SFyKR2; Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:07:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.3.11]
	(CPE00010242152b-CM0011aec8bfb4.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com
	[99.253.168.241])
	by ulysses.lattica.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FDBB738073;
	Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:07:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Bad performance on simple query
From: Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10811170853y75b1286fy503d82222b49bf15@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1226937197.5760.89.camel@dimi.lattica.com>
	<dcc563d10811170853y75b1286fy503d82222b49bf15@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Organization: Lattica, Inc.
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:07:01 -0500
Message-Id: <1226941621.5760.97.camel@dimi.lattica.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 (2.12.3-5.fc8) 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200811/148
X-Sequence-Number: 31879


On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 09:53 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> 
> Are you saying it's excessive you need the compound query?  Cause
> that's running in 91microseconds as pointed out by Alan.

Of course, my bad. I read that as 91ms (<blush/>).

Confusion came from the fact that pgadminIII reports the query
taking 20-40ms, so I read the 0.091 as seconds not ms.

-- 
Dimi Paun <dimi@lattica.com>
Lattica, Inc.