Hey Guys, I was just playing with exploring joins and plans i came across this create table t1(a int); create table t2(a int); insert into t1 select (x % 10) from generate_series(1, 100000) x; insert into t2 select (x % 100) from generate_series(1, 100000) x; pgtesting=> analyze t1; ANALYZE pgtesting=> analyze t2; ANALYZE this is reproducible the below query by default makes use of merge join (which takes way longer to return rows as compared to when i explicitly disable merge join it returns in half the time taken by merge join) but i am not able to figure out why, although i have run analyze on the tables. pgtesting=> explain (analyze, buffers) select * from t1 join t2 using (a); QUERY PLAN ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Merge Join (cost=19495.64..1039705.09 rows=97241600 width=4) (actual time=124.153..22243.262 rows=100000000 loops=1) Merge Cond: (t1.a = t2.a) Buffers: shared hit=886, temp read=320384 written=616 -> Sort (cost=9747.82..9997.82 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=56.442..81.611 rows=100000 loops=1) Sort Key: t1.a Sort Method: external merge Disk: 1376kB Buffers: shared hit=443, temp read=172 written=173 -> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..1443.00 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=0.030..10.003 rows=100000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=443 -> Sort (cost=9747.82..9997.82 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=67.702..9469.366 rows=100000001 loops=1) Sort Key: t2.a Sort Method: external sort Disk: 1768kB Buffers: shared hit=443, temp read=220222 written=443 -> Seq Scan on t2 (cost=0.00..1443.00 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=0.013..8.186 rows=100000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=443 Planning time: 0.402 ms Execution time: 26093.192 ms (17 rows) pgtesting=> set enable_mergejoin TO FALSE; SET pgtesting=> explain (analyze, buffers) select * from t1 join t2 using (a); QUERY PLAN --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hash Join (cost=3084.00..1117491.00 rows=97241600 width=4) (actual time=26.893..10229.924 rows=100000000 loops=1) Hash Cond: (t1.a = t2.a) Buffers: shared hit=889, temp read=273 written=271 -> Seq Scan on t1 (cost=0.00..1443.00 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=0.028..18.123 rows=100000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=443 -> Hash (cost=1443.00..1443.00 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=26.255..26.255 rows=100000 loops=1) Buckets: 131072 Batches: 2 Memory Usage: 2713kB Buffers: shared hit=443, temp written=152 -> Seq Scan on t2 (cost=0.00..1443.00 rows=100000 width=4) (actual time=0.017..9.163 rows=100000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=443 Planning time: 0.099 ms Execution time: 14095.975 ms (12 rows) pgtesting=> show work_mem; work_mem ---------- 4MB (1 row) pgtesting=> show shared_buffers; shared_buffers ---------------- 1GB (1 row) pgtesting=> select version(); version --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PostgreSQL 10.5 (Ubuntu 10.5-1.pgdg16.04+1) on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by gcc (Ubuntu 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.10) 5.4.0 20160609, 64-bit (1 row) May be i am missing something way obvious :) but my only concern being high cardinality joins may not use the statistics correctly? Regards, Vijay