Thanks for reply, sir.
On 11/21/2016 1:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Man <man.trieu@gmail.com> writes:
>> Additional information.
>> In 9.6 the second table (lesser tuple) was choosen (the same testdata).
>> There are something (cost estimation?) different in previous versions.
> I'd bet on different statistics in the two installations (either you
> forgot to ANALYZE, or the random sample came up quite a bit different).
> And I'm a little suspicious that these tests weren't all done with the
> same work_mem setting.
I dumped the two tables in pg9.4 and restored to pg9.6, sir.
I also set default_statistics_target to 1000 and ANALYZE d two tables in
both installations.
And so that were result.
Anyway i know that order can not change by tuning parameters because it
depend on storing data, thanks.
> regards, tom lane
Thanks and best regards,
