On 02/24/2011 12:13 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
That's not quite the right filter. You want to screen out
everything that isn't a unique index, not just the primary key ones.
You probably can't drop any of those without impacting database
integrity.
Ah yes. I was considering adding the clause for u
Shaun Thomas wrote:
I noticed with our database that without the indisprimary clause, we
had another 4GB of unused indexes.
That's not quite the right filter. You want to screen out everything
that isn't a unique index, not just the primary key ones. You probably
can't drop any of those wit
On 02/23/2011 03:17 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
Yes. The block usage you're seeing there reflects the activity from
maintaining the index. But since it isn't ever being used for
queries, with zero scans and zero rows it's delivered to clients,
Nice to know. To that end, here's a query that will find
Benjamin Krajmalnik wrote:
Index Scans0
Index Tuples Read 0
Index Tuples Fetched0
Index Blocks Read 834389
Index Blocks Hit247283300
Index Size 1752 kB
Since there are no in
I am trying to clean up our schema by removing any indices which are not
being used frequently or at all.
Using pgadmin, looking at the statistics for an index, I see various
pieces of information:
Index Scans, Index Tuples Read, Index Tuples Fetched, Index Blocks Read,
and Index Blocks Hit.
