Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
От | Gurjeet Singh |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CABwTF4V1JCOfV=8Da037NoEJ-LGDNo=P1uwBFChBCcE5dZDguA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCH] Re: Proposal to Enable/Disable Index using ALTER INDEX
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 3:45 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote: > I think the documents should also mention that disabling an index is a > useful way to verify an index is not being used before dropping it as > the index can be enabled again at the first sign that performance has > been effected. (It might also be good to mention that checking > pg_stat_user_indexes.idx_scan should be the first port of call when > checking for unused indexes) While reviewing Shayon's v14 patch, I had removed text (quoted below) from the ALTER INDEX docs that did not feel right in a command reference. I thought of reading up on the history/discussion of the patch, and now I see why Shayon chose to include an advice in ALTER INDEX docs. > + indexes. If performance degrades after making an index invisible, it can be easily > + be made visible using <literal>VISIBLE</literal>. Before making an index invisible, it's recommended > + to check <structname>pg_stat_user_indexes</structname>.<structfield>idx_scan</structfield> > + to identify potentially unused indexes. I feel ALTER INDEX command reference doc is not the right place for this kind of operational advice. Is there a better place in documentation for this kind of advice? Or maybe it needs to be reworded to fit the command reference style? Best regards, Gurjeet http://Gurje.et
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: