X-Original-To: pgsql-sql-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B9D9D1B589 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:32:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74726-09 for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:31:29 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43E44D1C9EB for ; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 12:26:27 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h93FQNhn019819; Fri, 3 Oct 2003 11:26:24 -0400 (EDT) To: "CN" Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Creating Index In-reply-to: <20031003041221.C45BB6475F@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com> References: ARRAY(0x9e227f0) <20031002155005.943CD74F4F@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com> <29316.1065117519@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20031003020640.1562A74D53@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com> <20031003041221.C45BB6475F@smtp.us2.messagingengine.com> Comments: In-reply-to "CN" message dated "Thu, 02 Oct 2003 20:12:21 -0800" Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 11:26:23 -0400 Message-ID: <19818.1065194783@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200310/46 X-Sequence-Number: 15446 "CN" writes: > I thought I have got no more question in this thread, and I was wrong :-( > Is the extra 300ms in UNION essential? Dividing, it looks like the Append node is taking about 3 microseconds per tuple, which seems kind of a lot considering it isn't really doing anything. I suspect though that most of this overhead is due to the EXPLAIN ANALYZE instrumentation, and would in fact go away when you are just running the query. regards, tom lane