Thomas Zaksek <zaksek@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is this query plan near to optimal or are their any serious flaws? I didn't see any problem with the query, but with the information provided, we can't really tell if you need to reconfigure something, or maybe add an index. The plan generated for the query is doing an index scan and on one table and randomly accessing related rows in another, with an average time per result row of about 4ms. Either you've got *really* fast drives or you're getting some benefit from cache. Some obvious questions: What version of PostgreSQL is this? What OS is the server on? What does the server hardware look like? (RAM, drive array, etc.) What are the non-default lines in the postgresql.conf file? What are the definitions of these two tables? How many rows? -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
