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 <robjsarg...@gmail.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 <robjsarg...@gmail.com > > <mailto:robjsarg...@gmail.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@postgresql.org > > <mailto:pgsql-general@postgresql.org>) > > To make changes to your subscription: > > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > > > >
