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 C7D7ED1B522 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:27:13 +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 40172-08 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:26:34 -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 5F573D1B4E3 for ; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 08:26:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [203.221.127.74] (helo=familyhealth.com.au) by relay01.kbs.net.au with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 1A8HtO-00045i-00; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:26:38 +1000 Message-ID: <3F87E8E5.1000203@familyhealth.com.au> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 19:26:29 +0800 From: Christopher Kings-Lynne 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 Cc: Pgsql-Performance Subject: Re: [SQL] sql performance and cache References: In-Reply-To: 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: 200310/391 X-Sequence-Number: 4139 > 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