> From: Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > You've provided no evidence that this is a bad plan. > Looks like I didn't take the time to understand properly what the explains were showing. > In particular, the plan you seem to think would be better > would involve > an estimated 153 iterations of the cost-15071 hash > aggregation, which > simple arithmetic shows is more expensive than the plan it > did choose. > I'd totally missed that all the cost was in the view that I'd created. Thanks tom -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
