X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C8AF9FA13E for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:09:40 -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 08110-05 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:09:32 -0300 (ADT) 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 E73549F9316 for ; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 15:09:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5DI9Spu009120; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:09:28 -0400 (EDT) To: "Shaun Thomas" cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Confirmation of bad query plan generated by 7.4 tree In-reply-to: <448EB053.8F27.00A9.0@leapfrogonline.com> References: <448EB053.8F27.00A9.0@leapfrogonline.com> Comments: In-reply-to "Shaun Thomas" message dated "Tue, 13 Jun 2006 12:32:19 -0500" Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:09:28 -0400 Message-ID: <9119.1150222168@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/190 X-Sequence-Number: 19547 "Shaun Thomas" writes: > Am I correct in assuming this terrible plan is due to our ancient > version of Postgres? I missed the part where you explain why you think this plan is terrible? 412ms for what seems a rather expensive query doesn't sound so awful. Do you know an alternative that is better? regards, tom lane