here when dealing with citext data
type.
-Thanks and Regards,
Sameer Naik
From: Deepak Somaiya [mailto:deep...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:44 AM
To: Tom Lane ; Bruce Momjian ; Naik,
Sameer
Cc: pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Re
Sameer,were you able to resolve it?
I am not sure if this is very common in postges - I doubt though but have not
seen such a drastic performance degradation and that too when planner making
the call.
Deepak
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019, 1:27:14 AM PDT, Naik, Sameer
wrote:
>The pr
Apology for sending you emails directly but I do see you guys responding on
email related to performance so thought of copying you folks.
Folks, I read following (PostgreSQL: Documentation: 9.6: citext) and it does
not hold true in my testing.. i.e citext is not performing better than lower.Am
/105250#105250
).
Regards,
Nanda
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 10:21 PM, Deepak Somaiya wrote:
>
> Folks,
> I read following (PostgreSQL: Documentation: 9.6: citext) and it does not
>hold true in my testing.. i.e citext is not performing better than lower.Am I
>missing something? help
Folks, I read following (PostgreSQL: Documentation: 9.6: citext) and it does
not hold true in my testing.. i.e citext is not performing better than lower.Am
I missing something? help is appreciated.
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
|
| |
PostgreSQL: Documentation: 9.6: citext
|
|
|
"citext
