On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Marcel van Pinxteren
> <marcel.van.pinxteren@gmail.com> wrote:
>> To be honest, the reason I don't want to use citext and lower(), is me being
>> lazy. If I have to use these features, there is more work for me converting
>> from SQL Server to Postgresql. I have to make more changes to my database,
>> and more to my software.
>> But, developers are generally lazy, so you could argue that this reason is
>> "compelling".
>> The other reason, is that I assume that "lower()" adds overhead, so makes
>> things slower than they need to be.
>> Whether that is true, and if that is a compelling reason, I don't know.
>
> Honestly as a lazy DBA I have to say it'd be pretty easy to write a
> script to convert any unique text index into a unique text index with
> a upper() in it.
But changing the application to create queries with upper() in the
queries could be very hard. And without that, the function index
would be useless.
That objection doesn't apply to citext. I don't know what object to that is.
Cheers,
Jeff
