Seqscans are not disabled. Also, this is PostgreSQL 10.11 if that helps.
Costs are as follows:
seq_page_cost
---
1
random_page_cost
--
1.5
It is odd that it does not just do a seqscan on table3. It's a very small
table... only like 36 rows. I'd think the
"Peter J. Holzer" 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
On 2020-03-05 18:08:53 -0700, greigwise wrote:
> I have a query like this:
>
> SELECT "table1".* FROM "table1"
> INNER JOIN "table2" ON "table2"."table1_id" = "table1"."id"
> INNER JOIN "table3" ON "table3"."id" = "table2"."table3_id"
> WHERE "table3"."number" = ''
> AND ("table2"."type") IN
I have a query like this:
SELECT "table1".* FROM "table1"
INNER JOIN "table2" ON "table2"."table1_id" = "table1"."id"
INNER JOIN "table3" ON "table3"."id" = "table2"."table3_id" WHERE
"table3"."number" = ''
AND ("table2"."type") IN ('Standard') ;
table2 has a large number of NULLS in the
