PFC <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The IN() is quite small (150 values), but the two large tables are > seq-scanned... is there a way to avoid this ? Not in 8.1. HEAD is a bit smarter about joins to Append relations. regards, tom lane
PFC <lists@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > The IN() is quite small (150 values), but the two large tables are > seq-scanned... is there a way to avoid this ? Not in 8.1. HEAD is a bit smarter about joins to Append relations. regards, tom lane