On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Don Baccus <dhog...@pacifier.com> wrote: > > On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Christopher Browne wrote: >> A hierarchy like the following is perfectly logical: >> - 0000 to 0999 :: Cash accounts [1] > > I asked earlier if anyone would expect 01 like '0%' to match … > > Apparently so!
Yes, and I was intentionally treating this as an oddity. > Your example is actually a good argument for storing account ids as text, > because '0000' like '0%' *will* match. Absolutely. The trouble is that if you use the term "account NUMBER" enough times, some portion of people will think that it's a number in the sense that it should be meaningful to add and subtract against them. > "I'd think it nearly insane if someone was expecting '3%' to match not > only the '3000 thru 3999' series, but also '300 to 399' and "30 to 39" > and "3"." > > How is PG supposed to know that integers compared to strings are always to be > padded out to precisely 4 digits? I think it's not quite right to treat it as "how is PG supposed to know." The problem is a bit more abstract; it occurs without having a database involved. The notion that the ranges (3), (30-39), (300-399), and (3000-3999) ought to be considered connected together in the account number classification is what seems crazy to me. But that's what "account number starts with a 3" could be expected to imply. At any rate, yes, this is liable to point the Lone Ranger towards solutions that involve him not riding off into the sunset! -- When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?" -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
