Re: Strangely Variable Query Performance

Steve <cheetah(at)tanabi(dot)org> writes:
> Here's the table and it's indexes. Before looking, a note; there's
> several 'revop' indexes, this is for sorting. The customer insisted on,
> frankly, meaninglessly complicated sorts. I don't think any of that
> matters for our purposes here though :)

Oy vey ... I hope this is a read-mostly table, because having that many
indexes has got to be killing your insert/update performance.

I see that some of the revop indexes might be considered relevant to
this query, so how exactly have you got those opclasses defined?
There's built-in support for reverse sort as of CVS HEAD, but in
existing releases you must have cobbled something together, and I wonder
if that could be a contributing factor ...

regards, tom lane