Re: Strangely Variable Query Performance

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

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