Re: URGENT: Index problems - update - please help ....
От | Steve Brett |
---|---|
Тема | Re: URGENT: Index problems - update - please help .... |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 9qmrha$u1l$1@news.tht.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: URGENT: Index problems - update - please help .... (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
many thanks for the help. i found the instructions on a mailing list via a search of the web. i eventually added a btree index but was under the (probably mistaken!) impression that hash indexes were better for varchar values. once again many thanks, Steve "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message news:26967.1003331234@sss.pgh.pa.us... > "Steve Brett" <steve.brett@e-mis.com> writes: > > i followed the instructions very carefully and get the following error when > > i try to run pg_upgrade .. > > pg_upgrade hasn't worked since 7.0. Where did you find instructions > that told you to run it? > > >> I added a hash index to a varchar value and when i vacuumed i got the > >> following error: > >> > >> Index customer_ha_hash: NUMBER OF INDEX' TUPLES (9176) IS NOT THE SAME AS > >> HEAP' (9181). > > If you have any rows that contain NULL in the indexed column, then this > result isn't very surprising, because hash indexes don't index nulls. > (Current sources have been fixed not to issue the cross-check notice > message for hash indexes, btw.) > > Personally I'd advise not bothering with hash indexes; use a plain btree > index instead. Does more, works better, doesn't have concurrency > problems. > > regards, tom lane > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: