Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BBD2476ABD for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:10:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4046F476B5E for ; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:07:03 -0500 (EST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h0266nd0017854; Thu, 2 Jan 2003 01:06:52 -0500 (EST) To: mdavies@ilstu.edu (Mark Davies) Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Slow self-join on a 100 million record table In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to mdavies@ilstu.edu (Mark Davies) message dated "31 Dec 2002 07:46:13 -0800" Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 01:06:49 -0500 Message-ID: <17853.1041487609@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517 X-Archive-Number: 200301/13 X-Sequence-Number: 10878 mdavies@ilstu.edu (Mark Davies) writes: > The problem is, the self-join solution is extremely slow. I have a > SQL Server 7.0 database with a clustered index on TheWord (sequential > words) and a normal index on TheID. Kindly do not pester Postgres mailing lists with SQL Server questions. regards, tom lane