From: | "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Lista Postgres" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Should duplicate indexes on same column and same table be allowed? |
Date: | 2006-12-09 19:17:04 |
Message-ID: | a97c77030612091117j40f9fdbejcdbb85e9aa354b8d@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On 12/9/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <mallah(dot)rajesh(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Suppose an index get corrupted. And you need create a new index
> > with exact specs and then drop the old index. Is it better to
> > have a performing corrupted index or not have it at all and temporarily
> > suffer some performance degradation ?
>
> The case that was being discussed just a day or two ago was where you
> wanted to do the equivalent of REINDEX because of index bloat, not any
> functional "corruption". In that case it's perfectly clear that
> temporarily not having the index isn't acceptable ... especially if
> it's enforcing a unique constraint.
Sorry ,
i guess i digressed .
Lemme put the question once again.
psql> CREATE INDEX x on test (col1);
psql> CREATE INDEX y on test (col1);
What is (are) the downsides of disallowing the
second index. which is *exactly* same as
previous?
Regds
mallah.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Cristian Cruz | 2006-12-09 19:45:25 | Re: Should duplicate indexes on same column and same table |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-09 17:46:31 | Re: Should duplicate indexes on same column and same table be allowed? |