Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([98.129.198.125])
	by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1TVqXD-00021u-Qs
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:18:11 +0000
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) id 1TVqXC-0002rJ-0D
	for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 06 Nov 2012 21:18:11 +0000
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qA6LI8qq020168;
	Tue, 6 Nov 2012 16:18:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
cc: Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Query completed in < 1s in PG 9.1 and ~ 700s in PG 9.2
In-reply-to: 
 <CAHyXU0xRk0LCj6NYuTAUaWN2FDAWj+jHgH2niDAGtb1w4QT83w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <509944DE.6020400@gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0ztB0e8eTidBbNXnhO6QjzaurXRGEBGbBt6P7oNY6vYcQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<5099525B.5070909@gmail.com>
	<CAHyXU0yKyz43s1GXO2QBDRwK8FeNqNAb6S0XUU66dSg+BD=xhg@mail.gmail.com>
	<50995D7C.9020108@gmail.com> <17866.1352229874@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<50996583.2080703@gmail.com> <18371.1352231105@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAHyXU0xRk0LCj6NYuTAUaWN2FDAWj+jHgH2niDAGtb1w4QT83w@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 06 Nov 2012 15:11:08 -0600"
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 16:18:08 -0500
Message-ID: <20167.1352236688@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.3 (--)
X-Archive-Number: 201211/75
X-Sequence-Number: 48441

Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> writes:
> hm, wouldn't timing the time to generate a raw EXPLAIN (that is,
> without ANALYZE) give a rough estimate of planning time?   better to
> rule it out before OP goes to the trouble...

Well, we still wouldn't know *why* there was a problem ...

			regards, tom lane