From: | "Jose' Soares Da Silva" <sferac(at)bo(dot)nettuno(dot)it> |
---|---|
To: | "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Brett McCormick <brett(at)work(dot)chicken(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)hub(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] regular expressions from hell |
Date: | 1998-06-01 09:52:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.3.96.980601094840.759A-100000@proxy.bazzanese.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 31 May 1998, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > I've noticed there are no less then 10^10 regex implementations.
> > Is there a standard? Does ANSI have a regexp standard, or is there
> > a regex standard in the ANSI SQL spec? What do we use?
>
> afaik the only regex in ANSI SQL is that implemented for the LIKE
> operator. Pretty pathetic: uses "%" for match-all and "_" for match-any
> and that's it. Ingres had a bit more, with bracketed character ranges
> also. None as rich as what we already have in the backend of Postgres.
>
> Don't know about any other ANSI standards for regex, but I don't know
> that there isn't one either...
>
- SQL3 SIMILAR condition.
SIMILAR is intended for character string pattern matching. The difference
between SIMILAR and LIKE is that SIMILAR supports a much more extensive
range of possibilities ("wild cards," etc.) than LIKE does.
Here the syntax:
expression [ NOT ] SIMILAR TO pattern [ ESCAPE escape ]
Jose'
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Herouth Maoz | 1998-06-01 09:56:09 | Re: Why Postgres (was Re: [HACKERS] custom types and optimization) |
Previous Message | DonHaback | 1998-06-01 09:09:35 | Re: REMOVE MY ADDRESS (Rod Stewart Live Online (fwd)) |