Scott Carey <scott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I consistently see HashJoin plans that hash the large table, and scan > the small table. Could we see a self-contained test case? And what cost parameters are you using, especially work_mem? > This is especially puzzling in some cases where I have 30M rows in the big table and ~ 100 in the small... shouldn't it hash the small table and scan the big one? Well, size of the table isn't the only factor; in particular, a highly nonuniform distribution of the key value will inflate the cost estimate for using a table on the inner size of the hash. But the example you show here seems a bit extreme. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
