On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Marcel van Pinxteren <marcel.van.pinxteren@xxxxxxxxx> 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. As another poster added, collation ain't free either. I'd say you should test it to see. My experience tells me that having an upper() (or lower()) index is not a big performance hit. If the storage of the index would be too much due to large text fields then make it a md5(lower()) index, which WILL cost more CPU wise, but allow for > 3k or so of text in a column to be indexed and cost less IO wise. -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
