On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Tim Perdue wrote:
> "Ross J. Reedstrom" wrote:
> > Mike Mascari gave you a detailed answer to that, which you seemd to just blow
> > off, based on you guesstimate that it would run too long:
>
> That is a separate issue - unrelated to this performance issue and it
> was not "blown" off, I was merely making a comment.
>
> > Right, as your explain output showed: the planner is picking this index
> > and using it. I'd guess that your time is getting lost in the sort step.
>
> I think you're probably right. It's hard to imagine that sorting is that
> much slower, but it's hard to say.
just curious, but what if you remove the ORDER BY, just to test ... is it
that much faster without then with? Just want to narrow down *if* its a
sorting issue or not, that's all ...
If it is a sorting issue, what if you raise the -S value?
