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 5395F53AA1 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:57:16 -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 13617-05 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 05:57:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D91C53A90 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 02:57:11 -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 j3M5vBfu027014; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:57:11 -0400 (EDT) To: Bill Chandler Cc: pgsql-perform Subject: Re: Index bloat problem? In-reply-to: <20050421170018.2998.qmail@web51403.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20050421170018.2998.qmail@web51403.mail.yahoo.com> Comments: In-reply-to Bill Chandler message dated "Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:00:18 -0700" Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:57:11 -0400 Message-ID: <27013.1114149431@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.007 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/606 X-Sequence-Number: 12003 Bill Chandler writes: > Client is reporting that the size of an index is > greater than the number of rows in the table (1.9 > million vs. 1.5 million). This thread seems to have wandered away without asking the critical question "what did you mean by that?" It's not possible for an index to have more rows than there are in the table unless something is seriously broken. And there aren't any SQL operations that let you inspect an index directly anyway. So: what is the actual observation that led you to the above conclusion? Facts, please, not inferences. regards, tom lane