<kynn@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Limit (cost=19676.75..21327.99 rows=6000 width=84)
> -> Hash Join (cost=19676.75..1062244.81 rows=3788315 width=84)
> Hash Cond: (upper(("outer".id)::text) = upper(("inner".id)::text))
> -> Seq Scan on huge_table h (cost=0.00..51292.43 rows=2525543 width=46)
> -> Hash (cost=19676.00..19676.00 rows=300 width=38)
> -> Seq Scan on tiny_table t (cost=0.00..19676.00 rows=300 width=38)
Um, if huge_table is so much bigger than tiny_table, why are the cost
estimates for seqscanning them only about 2.5x different? There's
something wacko about your statistics, methinks.
regards, tom lane
