X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BB2B5339B for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 36965-06 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:40:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6120653386 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:40:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3CFecNN021384; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:40:38 -0400 (EDT) To: "Bendik R. Johansen" Cc: PostgreSQL Perform Subject: Re: Slow update In-reply-to: <9e217f24329eaf693ab6921123213178@gmail.com> References: <0201deb23790cee173bdd2d3f0e96642@gmail.com> <15725.1113316540@sss.pgh.pa.us> <4bbbc6d3a436e415be630d768d609ef6@gmail.com> <16172.1113319006@sss.pgh.pa.us> <9e217f24329eaf693ab6921123213178@gmail.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Bendik R. Johansen" message dated "Tue, 12 Apr 2005 17:37:42 +0200" Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:40:38 -0400 Message-ID: <21383.1113320438@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/235 X-Sequence-Number: 11632 "Bendik R. Johansen" writes: > Yes, I tried dropping it but it did not make a difference. > Could the table be corrupt or something? You didn't directly answer the question about whether there were foreign keys leading to this table. Checking foreign keys could be the problem, particularly if the referencing columns don't have indexes. Also, maybe the table is just bloated? What does VACUUM VERBOSE say about it? regards, tom lane