From: | Charley Tiggs <ctiggs(at)xpressdocs(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | <me(at)alternize(dot)com> <me(at)alternize(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: primary key on lower(varchar) |
Date: | 2006-01-08 13:18:33 |
Message-ID: | F2929C20-69F4-40B6-B786-A8D8049F6CB0@xpressdocs.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-novice |
On Jan 6, 2006, at 11:29 PM, <me(at)alternize(dot)com> <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...
If I'm understanding you correctly, you have two tables that look
like this:
names
-----------
primary key
name
translated_names
------------------------
foreign key
translated word
language
if that is the case, why not simply relate both versions of word
(lower and proper case) to the same primary key?
Charley
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Witney | 2006-01-09 12:44:45 | Re: how to list all tables in a database |
Previous Message | operationsengineer1 | 2006-01-08 07:11:50 | Re: primary key on lower(varchar) |