Re: REINDEX in tables
Andreas Kretschmer <andreas@a-kretschmer.de>
From: Andreas Kretschmer <andreas@a-kretschmer.de>
To: Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Matthias Apitz <guru@unixarea.de>
Cc: pgsql-general@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2023-10-25T12:14:49Z
Lists: pgsql-general
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. Andreas -- Andreas Kretschmer - currently still (garden leave) Technical Account Manager (TAM) www.enterprisedb.com