Thanks for reply, sir.
On 11/21/2016 1:39 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Man 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
Man 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,
Thanks for response, sir.
On 11/20/2016 1:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Man Trieu writes:
As in the example below, i think the plan which hash table is created on
testtbl2 (the fewer tuples) should be choosen.
The planner usually prefers to hash on the table that has a flatter
Man Trieu writes:
> As in the example below, i think the plan which hash table is created on
> testtbl2 (the fewer tuples) should be choosen.
The planner usually prefers to hash on the table that has a flatter
MCV histogram, since a hash table with many key collisions will