On 20/12/12 14:57, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
CREATE TABLE test (id int);
CREATE INDEX test_idx1 ON test (id);
CREATE INDEX test_idx2 ON test (id);
I initially misread your example code, but after I realised my mistake,
I thought of an alternative scenario that might be worth considering.
CREATE
On 12/20/2012 12:26 AM, Gavin Flower wrote:
CREATE TABLE test (id int, int sub, text payload);
CREATE INDEX test_idx1 ON test (id, sub);
CREATE INDEX test_idx2 ON test (id);
Nowtest_idx2 is logically included intest_idx1, but if the majority of
transactions only query onid, thentest_idx2
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Gavin Flower
gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz wrote:
On 20/12/12 14:57, Josh Kupershmidt wrote:
CREATE TABLE test (id int);
CREATE INDEX test_idx1 ON test (id);
CREATE INDEX test_idx2 ON test (id);
I initially misread your example code, but after I realised my
I recently came across a scenario like this (tested on git head):
CREATE TABLE test (id int);
CREATE INDEX test_idx1 ON test (id);
CREATE INDEX test_idx2 ON test (id);
CREATE TABLE test_copycat (LIKE test INCLUDING ALL);
\d test_copycat
Why do we end up with only one index on
