"Huang, Suya" <suya.hu...@au.experian.com> writes:
> Thank you Tom. But the time spent on scanning table test1 is less than 1
> second (91.738 compares to 87.869), so I guess this shouldn't be the issue?
No, the point is that the bad rowcount estimate (and, possibly, lack of
stats about join column contents) causes the planner to pick a join method
that's not ideal for this query.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
