Rajesh Kumar Mallah wrote: > On 12/9/06, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Rajesh Kumar Mallah" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Suppose an index get corrupted. And you need create a new index > > > with exact specs and then drop the old index. Is it better to > > > have a performing corrupted index or not have it at all and temporarily > > > suffer some performance degradation ? > > > > The case that was being discussed just a day or two ago was where you > > wanted to do the equivalent of REINDEX because of index bloat, not any > > functional "corruption". In that case it's perfectly clear that > > temporarily not having the index isn't acceptable ... especially if > > it's enforcing a unique constraint. > > Sorry , > i guess i digressed . > Lemme put the question once again. > > psql> CREATE INDEX x on test (col1); > psql> CREATE INDEX y on test (col1); > > What is (are) the downsides of disallowing the > second index. which is *exactly* same as > previous?
The cost of preventing every stupid database use is too high. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
