"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@xxxxxx> writes: > How is the selectivity of "type"? Would an index on that column help? The EXPLAIN results say that the "type = 'Standard'" condition is completely not selective: in both plans, there is no "Rows Removed by Filter" indication where it's applied, indicating that it did not filter out any rows. Which is odd, because if that isn't removing any rows, why is the planner overestimating the number of rows retrieved from table2 by circa 10x? Maybe a lack of stats for the "type" column? I also find it odd that the second plan is uselessly using an index for table3 (I say "useless" because there's no index condition and no apparent need for the result to be sorted). I suspect the OP has been putting his thumb on the scales in ways he hasn't bothered to tell us about, like fooling with the cost parameters and/or disabling seqscans. regards, tom lane
