> which seems to make sense; you have one run of about 257ms, plus 514 runs
> taking about 0.035ms each (ie. about 18ms), which should add up to become
> about 275ms (which is close enough to the reality of 281ms).
Yep. The line that disturbed me was the bitmap index scan with a cost of
"actual time=254.143..254.143". I was more looking for something like
"actual time=0..254.143" which is what I usually have for an index scan.
So I suppose that the bitmap index scan returns rows only when it's
Thanks for your help.
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Alex Turner||Date: 2005-10-24 15:09:55|
|Subject: Re: What gets cached?|
|Previous:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2005-10-24 05:03:03|
|Subject: Re: prepared transactions that persist across sessions?|