On Wed, 19 May 2010, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>> It's apparently estimating (wrongly) that the merge join won't have to
>> scan very much of "files" before it can stop because it finds an eid
>> value larger than any eid in the other table. So the issue here is an
>> inexact stats value for the max eid.
I wandered if it could be something like that, but I rejected that idea,
as it obviously wasn't the real world case, and statistics should at least
get that right, if they are up to date.
> I changed stats target to 1000 for that field and still get the bad plan.
What do the stats say the max values are?
Matthew
--
Nog: Look! They've made me into an ensign!
O'Brien: I didn't know things were going so badly.
Nog: Frightening, isn't it?
