Re: Keep specialized query pairs, or use single more general but more complex one

From: Greg Sabino Mullane <htamfids(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk
Subject: Re: Keep specialized query pairs, or use single more general but more complex one
Date: 2025-02-24 16:39:15
Message-ID: CAKAnmmJeA-oXD-nOuqpi6EoSogmsgPAW-5puwN1scdc-snEC9g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 4:46 AM Dominique Devienne <ddevienne(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> But now we have a new requirement, for "fuzzy find". I.e. the client can
> ask for names
> which are not the exact in-DB names, but also aliases of those names.
>
...

> join unnest($3::text[]) with ordinality as aliases(name, ord) on c.name =
> aliases.name
>

I'm not seeing how this is supposed to work, if these aliases are not in
the database somewhere. Maybe an example? How does "Alli" get mapped to a
c.name of "Allison"?

Cheers,
Greg

--
Crunchy Data - https://www.crunchydata.com
Enterprise Postgres Software Products & Tech Support

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dominique Devienne 2025-02-24 16:50:24 Re: Keep specialized query pairs, or use single more general but more complex one
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2025-02-24 16:37:06 Re: Default Value Retention After Dropping Default