From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Don Baccus <dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rob Wultsch <wultsch(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Date: | 2012-02-18 23:03:06 |
Message-ID: | 4F402E2A.8010601@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 02/18/2012 05:34 PM, Don Baccus wrote:
> On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Don Baccus<dhogaza(at)pacifier(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Feb 18, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
>>>> Where first_name is string the queries above have very different
>>>> behaviour in MySQL. The first does a full table scan and coerces
>>>> first_name to an integer (so '5adfs' -> 5)
>>> Oh my, I can't wait to see someone rise to the defense of *this* behavior!
>> I can see a use, albeit a clumsy one, to the notion of looking for values
>> WHERE integer_id_column like '1%'
>>
>> It's entirely common for companies to organize general ledger account
>> numbers by having numeric prefixes that are somewhat meaningful.
>>
>> A hierarchy like the following is perfectly logical:
>> - 0000 to 0999 :: Cash accounts [1]
> I asked earlier if anyone would expect 01 like '0%' to match …
>
> Apparently so!
>
> Your example is actually a good argument for storing account ids as text, because '0000' like '0%' *will* match.
>
> "I'd think it nearly insane if someone was expecting '3%' to match not
> only the '3000 thru 3999' series, but also '300 to 399' and "30 to 39"
> and "3"."
>
> How is PG supposed to know that integers compared to strings are always to be padded out to precisely 4 digits?
>
By this point the Lone Ranger has committed suicide.
cheers
andrew
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-02-18 23:12:09 | Re: Future of our regular expression code |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-02-18 23:01:37 | Re: Notes about fixing regexes and UTF-8 (yet again) |