Gregory Stark wrote:
Christian Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
-> Seq Scan on table2 (cost=0.00..186.64 rows=2 width=4) (actual time=0.052..2.259 rows=42 loops=1)
Filter: (c ~~ '1131%'::text)
...
-> Seq Scan on table2 (cost=0.00..200.89 rows
>> I'm not entirely sure what Schrödinger would think about it.
I know what the cat thinks:
"What do you mean 'no observer'? What the #&*! am I??? LET ME OUT!"
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
On 9/8/07, Scott Marlowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Heisenberg would agree!
> I'm not entirely sure what Schrödinger would think about it.
He'd kill Heisenberg's cat?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
On 9/7/07, Carlo Stonebanks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> It means that measuring alters the reality.
>
> Heisenberg would agree!
I'm not entirely sure what Schrödinger would think about it.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your
>> It means that measuring alters the reality.
Heisenberg would agree!
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Carlo Stonebanks wrote:
> < that extra overhead in nested loop is largely gettimeofday() calls for the
> explain analyze. Does the query take less time run without explain analyze
> than it does run with it?
>>>
>
> Do you mean that an EXPLAIN ANALYZE that runs longer than the actual query
> is a
<
Do you mean that an EXPLAIN ANALYZE that runs longer than the actual query
is a symptom of time being lost to a function call?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/
Christian Schröder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
> -> Seq Scan on table2 (cost=0.00..186.64 rows=2 width=4) (actual
> time=0.052..2.259 rows=42 loops=1)
> Filter: (c ~~ '1131%'::text)
...
> -> Seq Scan on table2 (cost=0.00..200.89 rows=14 width=4) (actual
> time=0.084..3.419 rows=42
