> =# \d n_traffic
> Table "public.n_traffic"
> Column | Type | Modifiers
> --------------+-----------------------------+------------------------------
> login_id | integer | not null
> traftype_id | integer | not null
> collect_time | timestamp without time zone | not null default now()
> bytes_in | bigint | not null default (0)::bigint
> bytes_out | bigint | not null default (0)::bigint
> Indexes:
> "n_traffic_collect_time" btree (collect_time)
> "n_traffic_login_id" btree (login_id)
> "n_traffic_login_id_collect_time" btree (login_id, collect_time)
> Foreign-key constraints:
> "n_traffic_login_id_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (login_id) REFERENCES
> n_logins(login_id) ON UPDATE CASCADE
> "n_traffic_traftype_id_fkey" FOREIGN KEY (traftype_id) REFERENCES
> n_traftypes(traftype_id) ON UPDATE CASCADE
Why do you have indexes on both LOGIN_ID *and* LOGIN_ID + COLLECT_TIME?
It is because I think that queries which use only LOGIN_ID field will
use (faster) LOGIN_IDonly index... For me, speed of insertions is not
a primary task here (robot is not confused by delays...), but select
is. So I keep both indexes.
ISTM that you can drop the LOGIN_ID index.
--
engineer
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
