Case insensitive version of the IN operator?
Hi, I was wondering if there is a case insensitive version of the IN operator, similar to ILIKE. Or is the IN itself case insensitive? It's mainly to avoid using nested OR's and ILIKE's if a case insensitive IN exists, to make the queries much simpler. Also, I don't want to use functions like lower as it's a big data set and the use of functions may make the queries even slower. Please advise. Thank you. Regards, Kevork Vartanian Technical Solutions Consultant kevork.vartanian@innotta.com.au | +61 406 776 789 | www.innotta.com.au
I don't think so.
One workaround to write it more concisely would be
WHERE lcase(x) IN (SELECT lcase(y) FROM mytable) as tmp
On 13 Jan 2017 3:00 am, "Kevork Vartanian"
Hi,
I was wondering if there is a case insensitive version of the IN operator, similar to ILIKE. Or is the IN itself case insensitive? It’s mainly to avoid using nested OR’s and ILIKE’s if a case insensitive IN exists, to make the queries much simpler. Also, I don’t want to use functions like lower as it’s a big data set and the use of functions may make the queries even slower.
Please advise.
Thank you.
Regards,
*Kevork Vartanian*
*Technical Solutions Consultant*
kevork.vartanian@innotta.com.au | +61 406 776 789 <+61%20406%20776%20789> | www.innotta.com.au
[image: INNOTTA Logo]
_______________________________________________ users-list mailing list users-list@monetdb.org https://www.monetdb.org/mailman/listinfo/users-list
Hi Kevork, Am 13.01.2017 um 02:58 schrieb Kevork Vartanian:
Hi,
I was wondering if there is a case insensitive version of the IN operator, similar to ILIKE. Or is the IN itself case insensitive? It's mainly to avoid using nested OR's and ILIKE's if a case insensitive IN exists, to make the queries much simpler. Also, I don't want to use functions like lower as it's a big data set and the use of functions may make the queries even slower. Somewhere a case conversion has to happen. As strings are shared through offsets (correct me if I'm wrong) a case conversion on the whole column should be more efficient. MonetDB works on individual columns and will only load one column in that case (if it's not already in memory).
Regards, Moritz
participants (3)
-
Kevork Vartanian
-
Moritz Bruder
-
Roberto Cornacchia