Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D74559FA474 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:04:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12852-03 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:04:25 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:39:12.051723 by SQLgrey- Received: from serveurmail01.codata.be (125.123.146.82.ipv4.evonet.be [82.146.123.125]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A019FA3D7 for ; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:04:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by serveurmail01.codata.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6CF5A8003; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:04:23 +0200 (CEST) X-DSPAM-Result: Innocent X-DSPAM-Processed: Tue Oct 3 14:04:23 2006 X-DSPAM-Confidence: 0.5880 X-DSPAM-Probability: 0.0000 X-DSPAM-Signature: 452251c7102461553011157 X-DSPAM-Factors: 27, X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at Received: from serveurmail01.codata.be ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (serveurmail01.codata.be [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q04wqiYjA4R3; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:04:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.201] (unknown [192.168.1.201]) by serveurmail01.codata.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BFDA8001; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 14:04:22 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <452251C6.4060405@freesurf.fr> Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 14:04:22 +0200 From: Arnaud Lesauvage User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Arnaud Lesauvage , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Poor performance on very simple query ? References: <45224896.7040708@freesurf.fr> <20061003120027.GA13395@uio.no> In-Reply-To: <20061003120027.GA13395@uio.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.335 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200610/31 X-Sequence-Number: 21160 Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> Total runtime: 0.801 ms > > 0.801 ms is _far_ under a second... Where do you have the latter timing from? I fell stupid... Sorry for the useless message... ---->[]