On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Maciek Sakrejda <msakrejda@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> You're probably reading it wrong. The sort itself takes about 1 ms (just >> subtract the numbers in "actual="). > > I thought it was cost=startup_cost..total_cost. That is not quite the > same thing, since startup_cost is effectively "cost to produce first > row", and Sort can't really operate in a "streaming" fashion (well, > theoretically, something like selection sort could, but that's beside > the point) so it needs to do all the work up front. I'm no explain > expert, so someone please correct me if I'm wrong. You are right. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
