"Rigmor Ukuhe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> What causes this behaviour? is there any workaround? Suggestions?
At some point the planner is going to decide that one seqscan is cheaper than repeated indexscans. At some point it'll be right ... but in this case it seems its relative cost estimates are off a bit. You might try reducing random_page_cost to bring them more into line with reality. (But keep in mind that the reality you are measuring appears to be small-table-already-fully-cached reality. On a large table you might find that small random_page_cost isn't such a hot idea after all.) regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match