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
It is using index here , it is just that performance i.e query that use
functional index (one with lower) is performing better then index created on
citext column.
Deepak
On Sunday, April 8, 2018, 3:13:26 AM PDT, Nandakumar M
wrote:
Hi,
I have also faced the same problem with citext
Hi,
I have also faced the same problem with citext extension. It does not
use index when thereby making it almost unusable. The problem has to
do with how collation is handled from what I have read in old threads
in postgres mailing list (please refer
https://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/105244
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
