Re: Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Guillaume Smet
Subject Re: Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings
Date
Msg-id 1d4e0c10609041041o7a93e6dfx848dc1e1a91cb69a@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Stopgap solution for ILIKE in multibyte encodings  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom,

On 9/4/06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I propose that for ILIKE in multibyte encodings, we just pass the strings
> through lower() and then use the normal LIKE code.  This will be a bit
> slower than what we do now, but as a wise man once said, code can be
> arbitrarily fast if it needn't give the right answer.  And we can't just
> ignore the bug for still another release cycle.

Perhaps it's a stupid question but what about the indexes? An index on
lower(field) will be used by the new code or we wiil keep the current
behaviour of ILIKE?

Regards,

--
Guillaume


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Contrib module to examine client
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: sslinfo contrib module - information about current SSL