Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A1652E0338
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:03:09 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 84151-05 for
	<pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:03:00 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC1A02E0325
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:02:57 -0300 (ADT)
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 m2AF2qjL024006;
	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:52 -0400 (EDT)
To: Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
cc: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert;
	speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
In-reply-to: <47D54A47.3030608@postnewspapers.com.au> 
References: <47D505AF.4040101@postnewspapers.com.au>
	<47D5150C.8090802@enterprisedb.com>
	<23588.1205159638@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<47D54A47.3030608@postnewspapers.com.au>
Comments: In-reply-to Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au>
	message dated "Mon, 10 Mar 2008 23:48:39 +0900"
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:02:52 -0400
Message-ID: <24005.1205161372@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200803/199
X-Sequence-Number: 29153

Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
> It seems to happen with every statement run in the same transaction as, 
> and after, the procedure with all the subtransactions. As soon as a 
> COMMIT is executed, operations return to normal speed.

Ah.  I misread your post as saying that it happened only once.

			regards, tom lane