"Shaun Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Am I correct in assuming this terrible plan is due to our ancient > version of Postgres?
I missed the part where you explain why you think this plan is terrible?
412ms for what seems a rather expensive query doesn't sound so awful.
Do you know an alternative that is better?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
