Re: half the query time in an unnecessary(?) sort?

Josh Berkus wrote: [quoted out of order]
>Ron,
>
> Looking at your analyze, though, I think it's not the sort that's taking the
> time as it is that the full sorted entity_id column won't fit in work_mem.
> Try increasing it?

Yup, that indeed fixed this particular query since neither table was
particularly large.

> It still has to sort because the clustering isn't guarenteed to be 100%.

I guess I was contemplating whether or not there are some conditions
where it could be 100% (perhaps combined with Hannu's read only
table speculation).

> However, such sorts should be very quick as they have little work to do.

True, so long as the table can fit in work-mem. For much larger tables
IMHO it'd be nice to be able to simply do a seq-scan on them if there were
some way of knowing that they were sorted.