Steve <cheetah@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Here's the table and it's indexes. Before looking, a note; there's > several 'revop' indexes, this is for sorting. The customer insisted on, > frankly, meaninglessly complicated sorts. I don't think any of that > matters for our purposes here though :) Oy vey ... I hope this is a read-mostly table, because having that many indexes has got to be killing your insert/update performance. I see that some of the revop indexes might be considered relevant to this query, so how exactly have you got those opclasses defined? There's built-in support for reverse sort as of CVS HEAD, but in existing releases you must have cobbled something together, and I wonder if that could be a contributing factor ... regards, tom lane
