I have this query it runs reasonably quickly. SELECT "consolidated_urls".* FROM "consolidated_urls" INNER JOIN "topical_urls" ON "consolidated_urls".id = "topical_urls".consolidated_url_id WHERE (("topical_urls".domain_id = 157) AND ((topical_urls.hidden = 'f'))) ORDER BY index_delta DESC LIMIT 10 The explain for this goes like this. "Limit (cost=29899.43..29899.46 rows=10 width=1880)" " -> Sort (cost=29899.43..29906.04 rows=2642 width=1880)" " Sort Key: consolidated_urls.index_delta" " -> Nested Loop (cost=101.29..29842.34 rows=2642 width=1880)" " -> Bitmap Heap Scan on topical_urls (cost=101.29..7490.32 rows=2642 width=4)" " Recheck Cond: (domain_id = 157)" " Filter: (NOT hidden)" " -> Bitmap Index Scan on index_topical_urls_on_domain_id_and_consolidated_url_id (cost=0.00..100.63 rows=2643 width=0)" " Index Cond: (domain_id = 157)" " -> Index Scan using consolidated_urls_pkey on consolidated_urls (cost=0.00..8.45 rows=1 width=1880)" " Index Cond: (consolidated_urls.id = topical_urls.consolidated_url_id)" I add one more clause on to it to filter out index_deltas that are not null and the query becomes unusably slow. SELECT "consolidated_urls".* FROM "consolidated_urls" INNER JOIN "topical_urls" ON "consolidated_urls".id = "topical_urls".consolidated_url_id WHERE (("topical_urls".domain_id = 157) AND ((topical_urls.hidden = 'f'))) AND (index_delta IS NOT NULL) ORDER BY index_delta DESC LIMIT 10 The explain for this is goes like this "Limit (cost=0.00..20555.33 rows=10 width=1880)" " -> Nested Loop (cost=0.00..5430717.58 rows=2642 width=1880)" " -> Index Scan Backward using index_consolidateds_url_on_index_delta on consolidated_urls (cost=0.00..5316175.98 rows=15242 width=1880)" " Filter: (index_delta IS NOT NULL)" " -> Index Scan using index_topical_urls_on_domain_id_and_consolidated_url_id on topical_urls (cost=0.00..7.50 rows=1 width=4)" " Index Cond: ((topical_urls.domain_id = 157) AND (topical_urls.consolidated_url_id = consolidated_urls.id))" " Filter: (NOT topical_urls.hidden)" The index_delta field is double precision and is indexed. Any suggestions as to how to make this query run faster? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general