X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 888D13A4905 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:25:18 +0100 (BST) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02563-09 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:25:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECC93A48E9 for ; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:25:08 +0100 (BST) 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 i9SEP7x9001759; Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:25:08 -0400 (EDT) To: Gary Stainburn Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: curious delay on view/where In-reply-to: <200410281116.44972.gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk> References: <200410281116.44972.gary.stainburn@ringways.co.uk> Comments: In-reply-to Gary Stainburn message dated "Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:16:44 +0100" Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:25:07 -0400 Message-ID: <1758.1098973507@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200410/203 X-Sequence-Number: 19306 Gary Stainburn writes: > Anyone got any ideas of the cause, or thoughts on how I can trace the > problem? EXPLAIN ANALYZE results for the fast and slow cases would be interesting. Also, have you ANALYZEd the underlying tables lately? And what PG version is this? regards, tom lane