X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AA5F9DC993 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:50:56 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 76442-06 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:51:00 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76BA9DC9A3 for ; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:50:53 -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 k0U3oww5025262; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:50:58 -0500 (EST) To: Jen Sale cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Desperate: View not using indexes (very slow) In-reply-to: <200601251109.25876.js@slipt.net> References: <200601251109.25876.js@slipt.net> Comments: In-reply-to Jen Sale message dated "Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:09:25 -0500" Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 22:50:58 -0500 Message-ID: <25261.1138593058@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.101 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.101] X-Spam-Score: 0.101 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200601/472 X-Sequence-Number: 16950 Jen Sale writes: > can someone please tell me what we did wrong? Joins against union subqueries aren't handled very well at the moment. (As it happens, I'm working on that exact problem right now for 8.2, but that won't help you today.) The plan indicates that you are using UNION rather than UNION ALL, which is not helping any. Do you really need duplicate elimination in that view? regards, tom lane