dforum <dforums@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > If you analyse query plan, you see that most of the time are lost during > sequencial scan, and you have 2 seq scan. I think you missed the loops count. >> -> Index Scan using location_object_start_gist on location l1 >> (cost=0.00..4.16 rows=150 width=65) >> (actual time=3.354..10.757 rows=3 loops=211880) >> Index Cond: ((l1.objectid = l2.objectid) AND >> (l2.intermine_start <= l1.intermine_start) AND (l2.intermine_end >= >> l1.intermine_start)) This indexscan is accounting for 10.757 * 211880 msec, which is 99% of the runtime. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
