hat makes it any faster.
>
> Secondly, the first time you run this query you are reading the 1.8G
> table sequentially, and at about 55MB/s, which isn't gonna get faster
> without more / faster drives under your machine.
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Ip Wing Kin John w
Hi scott
I attached the query plan with this email. The top one is the first
run after I restarted my machine. And the bottom one is the second
run.
I am using PostgreSQL 8.3 on Solaris 10.
cheers
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 11:21 PM, wrote:
>>
I have a database (699221). It contains of 1.8GB data (707710). I am
doing a complex query. Which required to load a 80MB index (732287).
I restarted Postgresql so the cache is empty and it has to read the
table and index from disk. Which I understand is an expensive process.
But what I don't unde
