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@gmail.com
> <mailto:robjsargent@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
>
>