Hi Tom 2011/6/15 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Stefan Keller <sfkel...@gmail.com> writes: >> My explanation is that the message (saying that an index was >> implicitly created) is simply wrong. > > The correct explanation is that you're misinterpreting whatever output > you're looking at.
Pls. don't treat inquirers like this - but thanks for the tip. That's what I did: CREATE TABLE mytable2(id int, name text); ALTER TABLE mytable2 ADD PRIMARY KEY(id); Then I used pgAdminIII to look for the pkey index and there was nothing. That was and still is actually the problem. When I subsequently created an index CREATE INDEX ON mytable2(id); ...or two (:->) CREATE INDEX ON mytable2(id); Postgres silently created additional indexes and pgAdminIII obviously showed these (which is all right) - but still without showing the initial pkey index - which to me is misleading. > Every unique or pkey constraint has an underlying > index --- the index is the implementation mechanism for the constraint, > so this is assuredly so. Some tools that show both constraints and > indexes will omit constraint-associated indexes from the listing, since > otherwise they'd be showing duplicate information. IMO this decision is actually questionable. It makes no sense to me to suppress the indication if indexes: Either there is one or not, disregarding of constraints. In psql the commands \d+ and \di report indexes too. Yours, Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
