Kevin Goess <kgoess@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Albe Laurenz <laurenz.albe@xxxxxxxxxx>wrote: >> That means that your statistics are not accurate. > Aha, thanks, that explains why my test table with one row was so bad. But > even with all freshly ANALYZE'd tables, I still see the query reverting to > a sequential scan on that big contexts table once the number of rows in the > subselect goes over 199. Here's a simplified version that demonstrates the > problem. You've still got a nasty join-size estimation error: > -> Nested Loop (cost=6.18..1939.43 rows=411736 width=8) (actual > time=0.203..3.487 rows=35 loops=1) It's not apparent why that's so far off ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
