Re: redundent index?
Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
To: Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca>
Cc: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>, Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Date: 2003-10-31T13:47:14Z
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:17:24 -0500, Rod Taylor <rbt@rbt.ca> wrote: >On Wed, 2003-10-29 at 09:03, Robert Treat wrote: >> Indexes: entity_watch_map_pkey primary key btree (entity_id, watch_id), >> ewm_entity_id btree (entity_id), >> >> I can't think of why the second index is there, as ISTM there is no >> instance where the first index wouldn't be used in place of the second > >The cost in evaluating the first index will be a little higher Yes, the actual cost may be a little higher. But the cost estimation might be significantly higher, so there can be border cases where the planner chooses a sequential scan over a multi-column index scan while a single-column index would correctly be recognized as being faster ... Servus Manfred