Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> The 183 msec is the time needed to *fetch* the row, not the time to
>> update it. So it could well be that the other time is just the time
>> needed to update the table and indexes. If this see
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The following update was captured in the database log and the elapsed
>> time was 1058.956 ms. A later explain analyze shows total run time
>> of 730 ms. Although isn't the actual time to update
Denis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The following update was captured in the database log and the elapsed time
> was 1058.956 ms. A later explain analyze shows total run time of 730 ms.
> Although isn't the actual time to update the row 183 ms. Where is the
> other 547 ms coming from? Updati
The following update was captured in the database log and the elapsed time
was 1058.956 ms. A later explain analyze shows total run time of 730 ms.
Although isn't the actual time to update the row 183 ms. Where is the
other 547 ms coming from? Updating the two secondary indexes??
Oct 27 08
