Try this:
Rod, you improved my query last week (thank you very much) but I'm not sure
why but my performance is getting worse. I think I know what happened, when
I did my load testing I created data that all had the same date, so sorting
on the date was very fast. But now I've been running the
I'd be tempted to bump it up to 2.0 or 2.5 since data is on a single
disk (sequential scans *will* be faster than an index scan), but you
would need to run a benchmark on your disk to see if that is right.
I just set it to 2.5. What kind of benchmark can I run?
Every monitor is updated
With a slight correction (you had m mx so I changed them to be all mx, I
hope this is what you intended) this query works. It's exactly the same
speed, but it doesn't give me the warnings I was getting:
NOTICE: Adding missing FROM-clause entry for table monitorx
NOTICE: Adding missing
