Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C42E813364DE for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87643-03 for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:31:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B934133616B for ; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:31:49 -0400 (AST) 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 p0OHVjkI009615; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:31:45 -0500 (EST) To: Robert Haas cc: Kevin Grittner , JPalmer@linz.govt.nz, andy@squeakycode.net, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Possible to improve query plan? In-reply-to: References: <4D341E6802000025000396AF@gw.wicourts.gov> Comments: In-reply-to Robert Haas message dated "Mon, 24 Jan 2011 11:33:28 -0500" Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:31:44 -0500 Message-ID: <9614.1295890304@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.91 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201101/217 X-Sequence-Number: 42004 Robert Haas writes: > But isn't 13.5 seconds awfully slow to scan 149557 rows? Depends on how many physical blocks they're scattered across, which is hard to tell from this printout. And on how many of the blocks are already in cache, and what sort of disk hardware he's got, etc. > Any chance this is 9.0.X? It'd be interesting to see the EXPLAIN > (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output for this query. Yeah. regards, tom lane