X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA5359FA4B3 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 10:06:56 -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 24065-07 for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 10:06:45 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.206]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD9D59F9DCD for ; Mon, 1 May 2006 10:06:45 -0300 (ADT) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id h31so105341wxd for ; Mon, 01 May 2006 06:06:44 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=N7X3ssJz0ZOa2gy9cqPyFUXDMRM8Rbr4P2Z7R0hJ13i5OCotSRjWiXo+dCALS3uiQ4q0pfEETEcFXX+ONcYAwmPRprix/jIdQzQaJXC3tTfmO960SHSzA4PerP2mJN9C2O3Iglu0B5vJ6yzbSTALp2I4QKS1r5kGskCBN0wczns= Received: by 10.70.78.17 with SMTP id a17mr3149185wxb; Mon, 01 May 2006 06:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.91.11 with HTTP; Mon, 1 May 2006 06:06:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 14:06:44 +0100 From: "Steve Woodcock" To: "Scott Sipe" Subject: Re: Super-smack? Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <92F10BE1-B193-4EEA-877A-9260B55C2844@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <92F10BE1-B193-4EEA-877A-9260B55C2844@mindspring.com> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/4 X-Sequence-Number: 18791 On 01/05/06, Scott Sipe wrote: > So, my question is, before I do any further digging, is super-smack > flawed? Hmm, selects and updates of a 90k row table using the primary key, but no sign of a VACUUM ANALYZE... Cheers, Steve Woodcock