From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
Cc: | Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)gmail(dot)com>, premanand <kottiprem(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Date: | 2012-02-17 20:04:59 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobR1+M4e6LGkMxHc96CR946i6hfXqb+ShAgGJp8+ZentQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Strings of digits used that way should not be stored in numeric fields at
> all, IMNSHO, just as zip codes and phone numbers should not be. They should
> be text in the first place, and if the OP had done that he wouldn't have had
> any difficulty about this. I hope that's what the Lone Ranger would do ...
The argument isn't about whether the user made the right design
choices; it's about whether he should be forced to insert an explicit
type cast to get the query to do what it is unambiguously intended to
do. I don't believe it's entirely self-evident that it's always
better to store strings of integers in a text column rather than as an
integer or bigint - integers are pretty fast and compact. Even
granting that a text field would have been better, nobody's arguing
that you can't do LIKE against an integer column; we're just
discussing what syntax is required to make the user's intent
acceptably clear.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-02-17 20:05:43 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-02-17 20:02:55 | Re: MySQL search query is not executing in Postgres DB |