Re: problems with table corruption continued

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Brian Hirt" <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com>
Cc: "Postgres Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Brian A Hirt" <bhirt(at)berkhirt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: problems with table corruption continued
Date: 2001-12-18 19:20:00
Message-ID: 17805.1008703200@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Brian Hirt" <bhirt(at)mobygames(dot)com> writes:
> I was trying to avoid adding additional computed fields to the tables and
> maintaining them with triggers, indexing and searching on them. The index
> function seemed like an elegant solution to the problem

Understood, but can you write the index function in a way that avoids
having it do a SELECT to get at data that it hasn't been passed? I'm
wondering if you can't define the function as just
f(first_name, last_name) = upper(first_name || ' ' || last_name)
and create the index on f(first_name, last_name). You haven't shown us
the queries you expect the index to be helpful for, so maybe this is not
workable...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mikheev, Vadim 2001-12-18 19:25:08 Re: problems with table corruption continued
Previous Message Mike Mascari 2001-12-18 19:13:15 Re: Concerns about this release