Re: Does PostgreSQL ever create indexes on its own?

On 11/12/2015 02:21 PM, Doiron, Daniel wrote:
> I’m troubleshooting a schema and found this:
>
> Indexes:
>      "pk_patient_diagnoses" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)
>      "index_4341548" UNIQUE, btree (id)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_deleted" btree (deleted)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_diagnosis_type_id" btree (diagnosis_type_id)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_icd10" btree (icd10)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_icd9" btree (diagnosis_code)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_is_unknown" btree (is_unknown)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_modified" btree (modified)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_patient_id" btree (patient_id)
>      "idx_patient_diagnoses_uuid" btree (uuid)
>      "index_325532921" btree (modified)
>      "index_4345603" btree (deleted)
>      "index_4349516" btree (diagnosis_type_id)
>      "index_4353417" btree (icd10)
>      "index_4384754" btree (diagnosis_code)
>      "index_4418849" btree (is_unknown)
>      "index_4424101" btree (patient_id)
>      "index_4428458" btree (uuid)
>
> My questions is whether these “index_*” indexes could have been created
> by postgresql or whether I have an errant developer using some kinda
> third-party tool?

This is definitely a third party tool. The only time an index will be
implicitly created is:

1. You set a column as the PRIMARY KEY
2. You set a column UNIQUE

Lastly, postgresql would never use such a ridiculous naming scheme.

JD



--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  503-667-4564
PostgreSQL Centered full stack support, consulting and development.
New rule for social situations: "If you think to yourself not even
JD would say this..." Stop and shut your mouth. It's going to be bad.