The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joseph Bove) wrote:
> Actually, it's inconsistent with the exact same command. I've now
> replicated the problem by doing the following command:
> select count (*) from table;
> The table in question has 88899 rows.
> The response time is anywhere from 1 second to 12 seconds. Different
> response times can occur in the same minute of testing!

The only possible plan for THAT query will involve a seq scan of the
whole table.  If the postmaster already has the data in cache, it
makes sense for it to run in 1 second.  If it has to read it from
disk, 12 seconds makes a lot of sense.

You might want to increase the "shared_buffers" parameter in
postgresql.conf; that should lead to increased stability of times as
it should be more likely that the data in "table" will remain in
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.gultn" "@" "enworbbc"))
Signs of  a  Klingon  Programmer -  8.  "Debugging?   Klingons do  not
debug.  Our software  does not   coddle the  weak. Bugs  are  good for
building character in the user."

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
      joining column's datatypes do not match

Reply via email to