Tom Lane wrote:
> Eric Ridge <ebr@tcdi.com> writes:
>> Could pg_stats_user_indexes be lying?
>
> Jan probably knows this stuff better than I, but my guess is that if the
> counter type you are looking at is incrementing at all, then it's not
> too far off. I certainly can't think of a failure mechanism that would
> cause some indexes to be shown with zero hits when other indexes do
> get hits.
As described before in various threads, the messages from the backend to
the stats collector are unreliable INET UDP on purpose, so that a
clogged collector never slows down a backend.
If that happens, usually an entire bunch of not necessarily related
counter increments on a per transaction base would get lost.
>
>> I realize the real question is "why aren't these indexes being used",
>
> Up to a point. If it's a unique index then you may want the
> uniqueness-check functionality even if the index is never used for
> searches. (I think that pg_stats only counts search probes, not
> accesses made in connection with insertions, but I'm too tired to
> go double-check this.)
That is right. Only scans are counted for. A not scanned non-unique
index is obsolete or indicates a planner/casting problem.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
