Re: query performance, though it was timestamps,maybe just table size?

On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)mail(dot)com> wrote:

> Henry Drexler wrote:
>
> > why would the query time go from 4 minutes to over 50, for an
> > increase in table rows from 30 million to 65 million?
>
> Did the active (frequently referenced) portion of the database go
> from something which fit in cache to something which didn't? Did
> any hash table or sort nodes in plans go from fitting in work_mem
> to spilling to disk? Did any indexes need an extra level in the
> tree? Did any plans change based on size to something which is less
> than optimal, suggesting a need to tune the cost factors?
>
> -Kevin
>

Thank you for the list - I will research those in the manual.