Eelke Klein wrote
> What I noticed is that are no most common values mentioned ofcourse the
> value 1 only occurs once in the column but as all other values are NULL
> you
> could argue it is a common value.
A random sampling is unlikely to choose a record that only appears in 0.1
percent of the table.
Two sequential scans plus a hash seems like a good plan.
The smaller table is so small a sequential scan is fast. The larger table
experts to have all records read so it to should be scanned. Combining with
a hash seems sound. The fact the cross-column estimate is way off isn't
that big a deal though I'd be curious to hear Tom's opinion on why this is
so for educational purposes.
David J.
--
View this message in context:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/Wrong-estimate-in-query-plan-tp5775727p5775785.html
Sent from the PostgreSQL - general mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
