> From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>
> You've provided no evidence that this is a bad plan.
>
Looks like I didn't take the time to understand properly what the explains were showing.
> In particular, the plan you seem to think would be better
> would involve
> an estimated 153 iterations of the cost-15071 hash
> aggregation, which
> simple arithmetic shows is more expensive than the plan it
> did choose.
>
I'd totally missed that all the cost was in the view that I'd created.
Thanks tom