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@xxxxxxxxx > <mailto:robjsargent@xxxxxxxxx>> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general > > -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
