Re: Ltree pattern matching

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: terry(dot)gilbert(at)sas(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Ltree pattern matching
Date: 2021-11-12 15:37:04
Message-ID: 1696142.1636731424@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

PG Doc comments form <noreply(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
> In v12 ltree doc (I've not checked other versions)
> "The behavior of % is a bit complicated. It tries to match words rather than
> the entire label. For example foo_bar% matches foo_bar_baz but not
> foo_barbaz. If combined with *, prefix matching applies to each word
> separately, for example foo_bar%* matches foo1_bar2_baz but not
> foo1_br2_baz.

> I believe foo1 is in error (if I understood the operators), it should be
> foo.

A quick test shows that the examples are correct as stated:

contrib_regression=# select 'foo_bar_baz'::ltree ~ 'foo_bar%'::lquery;
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

contrib_regression=# select 'foo_barbaz'::ltree ~ 'foo_bar%'::lquery;
?column?
----------
f
(1 row)

contrib_regression=# select 'foo1_bar2_baz'::ltree ~ 'foo_bar%*'::lquery;
?column?
----------
t
(1 row)

contrib_regression=# select 'foo1_br2_baz'::ltree ~ 'foo_bar%*'::lquery;
?column?
----------
f
(1 row)

I'd be the first to admit that this paragraph doesn't seem to measure up
to our usual standards of clarity, but I'm not sure about what would be
better wording.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikael Sterner 2021-11-12 15:55:48 Why clear pg_wal when recovering?
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2021-11-12 14:20:32 Re: Example of json_array_elements