On Wed, Oct 25, 2023 at 02:14:49PM +0200, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > Am 25.10.23 um 14:11 schrieb Laurenz Albe: > > On Wed, 2023-10-25 at 11:59 +0200, Andreas Kretschmer wrote: > > > Am 25.10.23 um 11:57 schrieb Matthias Apitz: > > > > El día miércoles, octubre 25, 2023 a las 11:33:11 +0200, Andreas Kretschmer escribió: > > > > > Am 25.10.23 um 11:24 schrieb Matthias Apitz: > > > > > > We have a client who run REINDEX in certain tables of the database of > > > > > > our application (on Linux with PostgreSQL 13.x): > > > > > > > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d83last; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d86plz; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_memtable; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_dictionary; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY ig_dictionary; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d50zweig ; > > > > > > REINDEX TABLE CONCURRENTLY d50zweig ; > > > > > > > > > > > > We as the software vendor and support, do not use or recommend this > > > > > > procedure, because we have own SQL files for creating or deleting > > > > > > indices in the around 400 tables. > > > > > > > > > > > > The client is now concerned about the issue that the number of > > > > > > rows in some of the above tables has increased. Is this possible? > > > no, reindex will not add rows to the table. > > But if the indexes were corrupted before the REINDEX, it is possible that > > a query that didn't find a result before the REINDEX can find one afterwards. > > Thanks for the addition my friend, that's correct and could be an > explanation here. However, if that is happening, there is something seriously wrong, perhaps bad hardware. I would find the cause of this corruption. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@xxxxxxxxxx> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com Only you can decide what is important to you.
