Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 17:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Well, it's a big query. If it ought to take a second or two, and
>> instead is taking an hour or two (1800 times the expected runtime), that
>> might be close enough to "never" to exhaust Chris' patience. Besides,
>> we don't know whether the 1800 might itself be an underestimate (too bad
>> Chris didn't provide EXPLAIN ANALYZE results).
> This is a good example of a case where the inefficiency of EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE would be a contributory factor to it not actually being
> available for diagnosing a problem.
Huh? The problem is the inefficiency of the underlying query.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
