Hello List, Without showing the SQL statement, could someone please explain the, for me, unexpected number of expected rows (E-Rows) in line 5. Note: all indexes are supporting primary key constraints (thus the columns involved are NOT NULL). | Id | Operation | Name | Starts | E-Rows | A-Rows | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 0 | SELECT STATEMENT | | 1 | | 1 | | 1 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 2 | NESTED LOOPS | | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 3 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| HAN_T_INKOOPDEAL | 1 | 1 | 1 | |* 4 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | HAN_T_INKOOPDEAL_PK | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 5 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID| HAN_T_AANVRAAG | 1 | 4718K| 1 | |* 6 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | HAN_T_AANVRAAG_PK | 1 | 1 | 1 | | 7 | TABLE ACCESS BY INDEX ROWID | REL_T_FACTEENH | 1 | 683 | 1 | |* 8 | INDEX UNIQUE SCAN | REL_T_FACTEENH_PK | 1 | 1 | 1 | The numbers 4718K and 683 correspond with the number of rows in the tables. HAN_T_INKOOPDEAL has 225k+ rows. Why would display_cursor show the number of rows in the table instead of 1 (what I would expect). Is this expected behaviour and if it is could you point me to a document (preferably by Oracle) that explains this? Regards Eric