On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 04:27:10PM -0400, Daniel Griscom wrote:
> 3: ... some other solution I haven't thought of.
On a wild guess, could you try setting the CPU costs higher, to make the
planner choose a less CPU-intensive plan?
Other (weird) suggestions would include calling a user-defined function that
sleep()ed for you between every row. Or use a dual-core system. :-)
/* Steinar */
--
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/