| From: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |
| Date: | 2005-09-18 20:28:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20050918202822.GE31394@svana.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 04:19:06PM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >Err, which hackish workaround would that be? The right solution is
> >citext which creates it's own operator class. This doesn't have
> >anything to do with functional indexes either.
>
> Last time I looked it appeared to have significant limitations, and some
> considerable inefficiencies (e.g, copying the strings and folding them
> to canonical case on every comparison). I would certainly be extremely
> wary of just saying "that's the solution".
Ok, so citext has its limitations. Case-insensetive sort is hard [1].
My real question was, what was the solution he was referring to using
the USING clause?
[1] http://lafstern.org/matt/col2_new.pdf
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> http://svana.org/kleptog/
> Patent. n. Genius is 5% inspiration and 95% perspiration. A patent is a
> tool for doing 5% of the work and then sitting around waiting for someone
> else to do the other 95% so you can sue them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-09-18 20:50:40 | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |
| Previous Message | John Hansen | 2005-09-18 20:26:10 | Re: Does anybody use ORDER BY x USING y? |