Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-2.hub.org [200.46.204.251])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC48D6327FB
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:59:12 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.251]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 24660-10
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 11 Sep 2010 01:59:04 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from tamriel.snowman.net (tamriel.snowman.net [72.66.115.51])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE125630749
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:59:05 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by tamriel.snowman.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id 65D29231FD; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:59:03 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:59:03 -0400
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Mason Harding <mason.harding@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Slow SQL lookup due to every field being listed in
	SORT KEY
Message-ID: <20100911015903.GG26232@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <AANLkTinQu1vhokjuAZDd3d2b6oeSqERF4biNGP-k-6UV@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bHoIUPdzgh/2fjbD"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinQu1vhokjuAZDd3d2b6oeSqERF4biNGP-k-6UV@mail.gmail.com>
X-Editor: Vim http://www.vim.org/
X-Info: http://www.snowman.net
X-Operating-System: Linux/2.6.26-1-amd64 (x86_64)
X-Uptime: 21:57:26 up 379 days, 13:22, 16 users,  load average: 0.08, 0.04,
	0.02
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9,
	T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201009/48
X-Sequence-Number: 40251


--bHoIUPdzgh/2fjbD
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

* Mason Harding (mason.harding@gmail.com) wrote:
> Hi all.  I Have the following query (tested in postgres 8.4 and 9.0rc1)

Can you provide \d output from all the tables involved..?

Also, what does the query plan look like w/o 'enable_seqscan=off' (which
is not a good setting to use...)?  Increasing work_mem is often a good
idea if your system can afford it based on the number/kind of queries
running concurrently.  Note that you can also increase that setting for
just a single role, single session, or even single query.

	Thanks,

		Stephen

--bHoIUPdzgh/2fjbD
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkyK4mcACgkQrzgMPqB3kiiZvQCgm56ThanzOoQKJpFsSswfsrhs
rI4AnAmaBXEfDra3llxOQO2HsvRn7S6k
=pRCe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bHoIUPdzgh/2fjbD--