X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [64.117.224.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B07D1C4E0; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 17:14:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([64.117.224.193]) by localhost (neptune.hub.org [64.117.224.130]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 24336-02; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:12:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from curie.credativ.org (credativ.com [217.160.209.18]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20FA4D1C9DB; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 14:13:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B7BE55EFA; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:13:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from www.credativ.de (p509277CE.dip.t-dialin.net [80.146.119.206]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by curie.credativ.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FBB155BEA; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:13:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from krusty.credativ.de (unknown [172.26.14.235]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by www.credativ.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112521C0393; Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:13:08 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2003 19:13:13 +0200 (CEST) From: Peter Eisentraut X-X-Sender: peter@krusty.credativ.de To: Tom Lane Cc: The Hermit Hacker , pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: duplicated index entry found ... In-Reply-To: <21985.1060092140@sss.pgh.pa.us> Message-ID: References: <20030805012911.D1434@hub.org> <21985.1060092140@sss.pgh.pa.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at postgresql.org X-Archive-Number: 200308/37 X-Sequence-Number: 1897 Tom Lane writes: > The Hermit Hacker writes: > > duplicated index entry found, CHARACTER STRINGS LENGTH > > duplicated index entry found, LENGTH CHARACTER STRINGS > > duplicated index entry found, SUBSTRING > > duplicated index entry found, SUBSTRING > > 4 entries ignored... > > Yeah, I've been seeing that for quite some time, but haven't been able > to figure out what it's complaining about. Surely multiple index > entries for the same term are legal, so what's its beef? Since by default (which we don't override) an index entry points to its nearest containing section (rather than directly to its occurence), if a section contains the same index entry more than once, it does indeed look like a duplicate on the outside. There are at least two obvious ways to get rid of the warnings, but I could never figure out the benefits and drawbacks of them. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net