On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure that this change would fix your problem, because it might > also change the costs of the alternative plans in a way that > neutralizes things. But I suspect it would fix it. Of course, a > correct estimate of the join size would also fix it--you have kind of > a perfect storm here. As far as I can see on the explain, the misestimation is 3x~4x not 200x. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
