From: | <operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | me(at)alternize(dot)com, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key on lower(varchar) |
Date: | 2006-01-08 07:11:50 |
Message-ID: | 20060108071150.27599.qmail@web33302.mail.mud.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
--- me(at)alternize(dot)com wrote:
> > I don't really see the use-case for what you want
> anyway. Why don't
> > you just require the field to be all lower case,
> eg with a CHECK
> > constraint?
>
> simple case: lets say the table "translated_names"
> contains an foreign key,
> the translated word and the language the word is in.
> obviously,
> "Brotaufstrich" and "brotaufstrich" must relate to
> the same record. if i'm
> just saving the records in lowercase (or uppercase)
> i'm loosing the proper
> letter case...
>
> the workaround of adding 2 word fields (word_lower,
> word_normal) and
> setting word_lower to primary key unfortunately
> wastes a lot of diskspace
> espially when the table grows large...
>
> - thomas
isn't it easier to set up a serial for your primary key?
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Charley Tiggs | 2006-01-08 13:18:33 | Re: primary key on lower(varchar) |
Previous Message | me | 2006-01-07 05:29:21 | Re: primary key on lower(varchar) |