Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It may be more right in an abstract ideal world -- the reality is that text
> collation is annoyingly complex. But this may be a case where we can get away
> with just eliding this hassle.
If anyone actually complains about it, I think we can point to th
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> How so? If you think this change is a bad idea you'd better speak up
>>> PDQ.
>
>> Well I think it's fine for 'foo ' != 'foo' even if they sort similarly.
>
>> But I'm
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> How so? If you think this change is a bad idea you'd better speak up
>> PDQ.
> Well I think it's fine for 'foo ' != 'foo' even if they sort similarly.
> But I'm not sure it makes sense for <'foo ','a'> to sort
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> I'm intending to get rid of ~=~ and ~<>~ for 8.4; there's no longer any
>>> reason why those slots in the pattern_ops classes can't be filled by the
>>> plain = and <> o
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I'm intending to get rid of ~=~ and ~<>~ for 8.4; there's no longer any
>> reason why those slots in the pattern_ops classes can't be filled by the
>> plain = and <> operators. (There *was* a reason when they wer
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Hm, for a simple = or <> I think it doesn't matter which operator class you
>> use. For < or > it would produce different answers. Postgres isn't clever
>> enough
>> to notice that this is equivalent though so I
Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hm, for a simple = or <> I think it doesn't matter which operator class you
> use. For < or > it would produce different answers. Postgres isn't clever
> enough
> to notice that this is equivalent though so I think you would have to do
> something like (
"Kaare Rasmussen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi
>
> The database is initialized with utf8, so in order for LIKE to use the index
> on
> a text field, I used text_pattern_ops when I created it. So far so good.
>
> It's in the documentation, but there's no explanation of why this index will
>
Hi
The database is initialized with utf8, so in order for LIKE to use the index
on a text field, I used text_pattern_ops when I created it. So far so good.
It's in the documentation, but there's no explanation of why this index will
only work for LIKE searches. How come that I have to have tw
