Thanks Tom, Exactly what I did, when I realised that there was an extra Table in the FROM with no conditions set.
Well anyway, this did clear my doubts about whether schema affects performance at all. Robins On 8/29/07, Robins Tharakan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thanks Tom, > > Exactly what I did, when I realised that there was an extra Table in the > FROM with no conditions set. > > Well anyway, this did clear my doubts about whether schema affects > performance at all. > > Robins > > On 8/28/07, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Schemas are utterly, utterly irrelevant to performance. > > > > I'm guessing you missed analyzing one of the tables, or forgot an index, > > or something like that. Also, if you did anything "cute" like use the > > same table name in more than one schema, you need to check the > > possibility that some query is selecting the wrong one of the tables. > > > > The explain output you showed is no help because the expense is > > evidently down inside one of the functions in the SELECT output list. > > > > One thing you should probably try before getting too frantic is > > re-ANALYZEing all the tables and then starting a fresh session to > > clear any cached plans inside the functions. If it's still slow > > then it'd be worth digging deeper. > > > > regards, tom lane > > -- Robins
