Re: Multicolumn index for single-column queries?

On 19/04/2019 01:24, Ron wrote:
> On 4/18/19 2:14 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 18.04.19 um 08:52 schrieb rihad:
>>> Hi. Say there are 2 indexes:
>>>
>>>     "foo_index" btree (foo_id)
>>>
>>>     "multi_index" btree (foo_id, approved, expires_at)
>>>
>>>
>>> foo_id is an integer. Some queries involve all three columns in 
>>> their WHERE clauses, some involve only foo_id.
>>> Would it be ok from general performance standpoint to remove 
>>> foo_index and rely only on multi_index? I know that
>>> PG would have to do less work updating just one index compared to 
>>> updating them both, but wouldn't searches
>>> on foo_id alone become slower? 
>>
>> it depends .
>>
>> it depends on the queries you are using, on your workload. a 
>> multi-column-index will be large than an index over just one column,
>> therefore you will have more disk-io when you read from such an index.
>
> But two indexes are larger than one index, and updating two indexes 
> requires more disk IO than updating one index.

Agreed.

A key question would be: how often is the query run, compared to the 
frequency Insertions, Updates, and Deletions -- wrt the table.

>
> (Prefix compression would obviate the need for this question. Then 
> your multi-column index would be *much* smaller.)

True, but a multi column index will still be bigger than single column 
index.

[...]