X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A90E5D1B511; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:27:11 +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 33180-09; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:26:31 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from relay01.kbs.net.au (149.32.220.203.comindico.com.au
	[203.220.32.149]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 479CCD1B529; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:26:24 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from [203.221.127.74] (helo=familyhealth.com.au)
	by relay01.kbs.net.au with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1)
	id 1A8HtI-00045d-00; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:33 +1000
Message-ID: <3F87E8DF.5080608@familyhealth.com.au>
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:26:23 +0800
From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl@familyhealth.com.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.5b) Gecko/20030901 Thunderbird/0.2
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Chris Faulkner <chrisf@oramap.com>
Cc: Pgsql-Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	Pgsql-Sql <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache
References: <DGENKIKMJILAAKJGFHKFKEKGCIAA.chrisf@oramap.com>
In-Reply-To: <DGENKIKMJILAAKJGFHKFKEKGCIAA.chrisf@oramap.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org
X-Archive-Number: 200310/390
X-Sequence-Number: 4138


>  Nested Loop  (cost=0.00..147.11 rows=1 width=148) (actual
> time=84.00..12323.00 rows=67 loops=1)

The planner estimate doesn't seem to match reality in that particular 
step.  Are you sure you've run:

ANALYZE oscar_node;
ANALYZE oscar_point;

And you could even run VACUUM FULL on them just to make sure.

Does that make any difference?

Chris