Robert Haas <> writes:
> But isn't 13.5 seconds awfully slow to scan 149557 rows?
Depends on how many physical blocks they're scattered across, which
is hard to tell from this printout. And on how many of the blocks
are already in cache, and what sort of disk hardware he's got, etc.
> Any chance this is 9.0.X? It'd be interesting to see the EXPLAIN
> (ANALYZE, BUFFERS) output for this query.
regards, tom lane