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 2D78653A89 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:28:45 -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 04074-02 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:28:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92D0053A27 for ; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 14:28:32 -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 j3MHSWE2003034; Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:28:32 -0400 (EDT) To: "David Roussel" Cc: "Bill Chandler" , "pgsql-perform" Subject: Re: Index bloat problem? In-reply-to: <1114186596.23462.232500712@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20050421170018.2998.qmail@web51403.mail.yahoo.com> <27013.1114149431@sss.pgh.pa.us> <869771629a1d24a91b8df779f7cddfe9@diroussel.xsmail.com> <329.1114178793@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1114186596.23462.232500712@webmail.messagingengine.com> Comments: In-reply-to "David Roussel" message dated "Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:16:36 +0100" Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 13:28:32 -0400 Message-ID: <3033.1114190912@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane 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: 200504/617 X-Sequence-Number: 12014 "David Roussel" writes: > Note there is no reference to iso_pjm_data_update_events_event_id_key > which is the index that went wacky on us. Does that seem weird to you? What that says is that that index doesn't belong to that table. You sure it wasn't a chance coincidence of names that made you think it did? regards, tom lane