Gaetano Mendola <mendola@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, it sure looks to be exactly the same plan. The performance
>> difference seems to be just that the seqscans are faster. I surmise
>> that in the 7.3 database you had a lot of dead rows, or at least a lot
>> of free space. Possibly you need to vacuum more often to keep down the
>> amount of junk in the tables.
> The two databases were created from scratch and the first
> operation on it ( after a vacuum analyze ) was just that query.
Y'know, I'd love to think that 7.4 is 2x faster than 7.3 on seqscanning,
but I just can't believe that. We didn't do anything that could account
for such a speedup. So there's got to be some inconsistency in your
test conditions.
regards, tom lane