On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> writes:
>> So, Tom, so you think it's possible that the planner isn't noticing
>> all those nulls and thinks it'll just take a row or two to get to the
>> value it needs to join on?
>
> Could be. I don't have time right now to chase through the code, but
> that sounds like a plausible theory.
K. I think I'll try an index on that field "where not null" and see
if that helps.