From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Steve Brett" <steve(dot)brett(at)e-mis(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: URGENT: Index problems - update - please help .... |
Date: | 2001-10-17 15:07:14 |
Message-ID: | 26967.1003331234@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
"Steve Brett" <steve(dot)brett(at)e-mis(dot)com> writes:
> i followed the instructions very carefully and get the following error when
> i try to run pg_upgrade ..
pg_upgrade hasn't worked since 7.0. Where did you find instructions
that told you to run it?
>> I added a hash index to a varchar value and when i vacuumed i got the
>> following error:
>>
>> Index customer_ha_hash: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (9176) IS NOT THE SAME AS
>> HEAP' (9181).
If you have any rows that contain NULL in the indexed column, then this
result isn't very surprising, because hash indexes don't index nulls.
(Current sources have been fixed not to issue the cross-check notice
message for hash indexes, btw.)
Personally I'd advise not bothering with hash indexes; use a plain btree
index instead. Does more, works better, doesn't have concurrency
problems.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hervé Piedvache | 2001-10-17 15:40:13 | Vacuum - Uninitialized page ??? |
Previous Message | Keary Suska | 2001-10-17 14:59:23 | Re: Dynamically created tables [WAS Re: "Relation x |