From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pvasickova(at)hotmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Request: set opclass for generated unique and primary |
Date: | 2006-02-22 22:56:42 |
Message-ID: | 20060222145513.D79453@megazone.bigpanda.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > > >I seem to recall someone proposing extending the syntax of the UNIQUE
> > > >constraints themselves, but there really isn't enough use-case to
> > > >justify it AFAICS. Especially not when you can always use CREATE
> >UNIQUE
> > > >INDEX.
> > >
> > > I can always use second unique index. But it's redundant. This problem
> >is
> > > related to using nonC locale.
> >
> >Why do you need both the unique index with varchar_pattern_ops and one
> >with the default ops?
>
> Because LIKE op don't use index on default ops with non C locale. I found it
> on tables of czech communities. Primary key is NUTS - 4..6 numbers. I have
> to search values with some prefix -> op Like and on primary key can't to use
> std. index.
Right, but does the pattern_ops one have to be unique?
And if it does, do you need the normal unique constraint as well?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John | 2006-02-22 23:53:08 | Which func tells the tuple size of a given relation? |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2006-02-22 22:53:54 | Re: Request: set opclass for generated unique and primary key indexes |