X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E207F5283B
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 27 May 2005 21:09:42 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 59011-03
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Sat, 28 May 2005 00:09:41 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 321435288C
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 27 May 2005 21:09:41 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j4S09iSa001738;
	Fri, 27 May 2005 20:09:44 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Redundant indexes? 
In-reply-to: <429790E1.5040308@comcast.net> 
References: <429790E1.5040308@comcast.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net>
	message dated "Fri, 27 May 2005 17:28:01 -0400"
Date: Fri, 27 May 2005 20:09:44 -0400
Message-ID: <1737.1117238984@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 200505/416
X-Sequence-Number: 12580

Jeffrey Tenny <jeffrey.tenny@comcast.net> writes:
> Would I be correct in assuming that the following two indexes are 
> completely redundant except for the fact that one complains about 
> uniqueness constraint violations and the other does not?

Yup ...

			regards, tom lane