X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42ACB9FA192 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:28:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 84410-03 for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:27:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from alvh.no-ip.org (201-221-201-100.bk11-dsl.surnet.cl [201.221.201.100]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D78269FA0EC for ; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 14:27:52 -0300 (ADT) Received: by alvh.no-ip.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8426CC22E96; Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:27:49 -0400 (CLT) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 13:27:49 -0400 From: Alvaro Herrera To: Jozsef Szalay Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: FWD: Update touches unrelated indexes? Message-ID: <20060630172749.GA25181@surnet.cl> Mail-Followup-To: Jozsef Szalay , Tom Lane , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200606/501 X-Sequence-Number: 19858 Jozsef Szalay wrote: > >he probably needs to think harder about whether every one of those > >indexes is really carrying its weight. > > Unfortunately all of those indexes are required by the application. It > appears that the only viable option I have is to drop the indexes and > recreate them after the update. Not at all -- the option is just continue to operate normally after the update, because all the indexes are always updated. If you see an index not being updated, it's a bug and by all means report it, preferably with a test case other people can reproduce. -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.