Re: Composite Index question

I know there is no benfit of having duplicate indexes.
Inorder for me to make change on production it requires lot of approvals and
stuff.

I wnat to know if there is any major performance drawback for having
duplicate composite index, so that i can push hard for the change. Let me
know.

thanks for your looking into this.

On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Rob Sargent <robjsargent(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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
> >
> >
>