"Huang, Suya" <Suya.Huang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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
