X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAFF4D8ED6 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:31:21 -0400 (AST) 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 65729-10 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:31:20 +0000 (GMT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454B6D79D9 for ; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:31:19 -0400 (AST) 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 jA6GVI2Q025137; Sun, 6 Nov 2005 11:31:18 -0500 (EST) To: "PostgreSQL" Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8.1 iss In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to "PostgreSQL" message dated "Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:55:18 -0600" Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 11:31:18 -0500 Message-ID: <25136.1131294678@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.006 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006] X-Spam-Score: 0.006 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/99 X-Sequence-Number: 15356 "PostgreSQL" writes: > This is a pretty good example of the place where 8.1 seems to be quite > broken. That's a bit of a large claim on the basis of one data point. Did you remember to re-ANALYZE after loading the table into the new database? regards, tom lane