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 7363D53F8A for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:09:05 -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 17876-09 for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 17:08:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from boutiquenumerique.com (boutiquenumerique.com [82.67.9.10]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CBAB53F7B for ; Thu, 14 Apr 2005 14:08:55 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 31197 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2005 19:08:58 +0200 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (boutiquenumerique-lists@192.168.0.4) by boutiquenumerique.com with SMTP; 14 Apr 2005 19:08:58 +0200 To: "Andreas Joseph Krogh" , pgsql-sql@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Very low performance on table with only 298 rows References: <200504141248.21783.andreak@officenet.no> Message-ID: Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 19:08:53 +0200 From: PFC Organization: =?iso-8859-15?Q?La_Boutique_Num=E9rique?= Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; delsp=yes; charset=iso-8859-15 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <200504141248.21783.andreak@officenet.no> User-Agent: Opera M2(BETA2)/8.0 (Linux, build 987) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.002 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/199 X-Sequence-Number: 21092 > nbeweb=> EXPLAIN ANALYZE select count(*) from onp_web_index; > Total runtime: 179748.993 ms WOW. It's possible your table is bloated. What version of PG are you using ? VACUUM FULL ANALYZE VERBOSE onp_web_index if it solves your problem, good, else post the results from that command.