Re: Composite Index question

If you can think of one benefit from having the redundant index then by
all means keep it. It certainly eludes me. Seems to me, removing an
un-necessary index on a huge table can only be a good thing.

On 10/20/2010 06:02 PM, DM wrote:
> Its a huge table in production, i dont want to take any risk.
>
> I can simulate and test this but i was to checking to see If any one
> knows off hand about this.
>
>
>
> I can simulate it but
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:57 PM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> Hm. Run some queries; drop the second version of the index definition;
> re-run the same queries; report to the group. The redundant index isn't
> helping, that much is certain.
>
> On 10/20/2010 05:43 PM, DM wrote:
> > Composite Index question:
> >
> > I have composite index on 3 columns on a table, by mistake the
> composite
> > index was created twice on the table.
> >
> > Will there any performance issues on this table because of the 2 same
> > composite indexes?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Deepak
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
> <mailto:pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>
>