Re: Planner choosing NestedLoop, although it is slower...

Mario Splivalo <mario.splivalo@megafon.hr> writes:
> On 07/12/2011 10:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What you need to look into is why the estimated join size is 9400 rows
>> when the actual join size is zero.  Are both tables ANALYZEd?  Are you
>> intentionally selecting rows that have no join partners?

> Yes, both tables have been ANALYZEd. What do you mean, intentilnaly
> selecting rows taht have no join partners?

I'm wondering why the actual join size is zero.  That seems like a
rather unexpected case for a query like this.

            regards, tom lane