user6918: Looking at the select statement in the screencap below - with the latest info also displayed from cardanoscan - I was expecting to see a direct correlation but my db-sync appears to be far behind cardanoscan? Am I querying the db incorrectly? Making an incorrect assumption or interpreting wrong, or has my db-sync simply fallen far behind?


user5926: Firstly, you should avoid using the id field in any query (even sorting) for any purpose other than joining tables. The id fields are auto-generated by
PostgreSQL and different instances can have different id fields for the same block. It would be better to sort on block_no (which increments by one for each new block) or time.
It looks like your instance is an epoch or so behind.

6918: <p>Looking at the select statement in the screencap below - with the latest info also displayed from cardanoscan - I was expecting to see a direct correlation but my db-sync appears to be far behind cardanoscan? Am I querying the db incorrectly? Making an incorrect assumption or interpreting wrong, or has my db-sync simply fallen far behind?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/8lJMy.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/8lJMy.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
 5926: <p>Firstly, you should avoid using the <code>id</code> field in any query (even sorting) for any purpose other than joining tables. The <code>id</code> fields are auto-generated by
PostgreSQL and different instances can have different <code>id</code> fields for the same block. It would be better to sort on <code>block_no</code> (which increments by one for each new block) or <code>time</code>.</p>
<p>It looks like your instance is an epoch or so behind.</p>
