Simon Riggs <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Well, it's a big query. If it ought to take a second or two, and >> instead is taking an hour or two (1800 times the expected runtime), that >> might be close enough to "never" to exhaust Chris' patience. Besides, >> we don't know whether the 1800 might itself be an underestimate (too bad >> Chris didn't provide EXPLAIN ANALYZE results). > This is a good example of a case where the inefficiency of EXPLAIN > ANALYZE would be a contributory factor to it not actually being > available for diagnosing a problem. Huh? The problem is the inefficiency of the underlying query. regards, tom lane
