"Chuck D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Doesn't that seem a bit strange? Does it have to do with the smaller size of > the new table maybe?
No, it seems to be a planner bug: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2007-05/msg00920.php I imagine that your table statistics are close to the critical point where a bitmap scan looks cheaper or more expensive than a plain index scan, and so the chosen plan varies depending on more-or-less chance factors. Certainly getting rid of NULLs shouldn't have had any direct impact on this choice. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
