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 D6E56D1B1A1 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:46:31 -0300 (ADT) 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 60818-06 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:46:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E667D1B495 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 20:46:28 -0300 (ADT) Received: from news.hub.org (news.hub.org [200.46.204.72]) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id i6PNkRqd045977 for ; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:46:27 GMT (envelope-from news@news.hub.org) Received: (from news@localhost) by news.hub.org (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id i6PNjFB6045881 for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Sun, 25 Jul 2004 23:45:15 GMT From: Gaetano Mendola X-Newsgroups: comp.databases.postgresql.sql Subject: Re: Please help - performance problems Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 01:45:02 +0200 Organization: PYRENET Midi-pyrenees Provider Lines: 19 Message-ID: <410445FE.1020709@bigfoot.com> References: <46a31c4d.0407201842.48d29401@posting.google.com> <46a31c4d.0407211636.46011695@posting.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@pyrenet.fr To: ctrl User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.7.1 (Windows/20040626) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <46a31c4d.0407211636.46011695@posting.google.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.84.2.0 X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org 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: 200407/223 X-Sequence-Number: 18475 ctrl wrote: > I have news...good news for me:) > even though I wasn't able to find the answers I was looking for, I did > something that made a big difference: by removing the ORDER BY clause, > the same function takes now 5 milliseconds (instead of sometimes 10 > minutes). > I have tried to vacuum, analyze, etc...nothing worked. > I post this hoping it could help somebody. How many memory are you using for the sort operations, is that column indexed ? Regards Gaetano Mendola