"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
>> On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 07:46:58AM +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
>>> Have you yet given any advantages of contains over @@ ?
>
>> Familiarity for users of SQL Server that are migrating? ;-)
>> (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms187787.aspx)
>
> That argument would only hold water if we were going to adopt *all* of
> their syntax for the feature ... and the other choices they've made seem
> pretty ugly to me.
Well, yes and no. A degree of partial compatibility could still be interesting
without the bells and whistles as long as we're compatible as far as we do go.
We could always add bells and whistles later if we want.
What would be of concern here is that we could be cutting off adding a more
fully compatible function.
Their syntax for the search pattern is quite different (and more
human-readable). If we implement a contains() function which just takes a text
and casts it from our text representation to a tsquery then we're blocking
ever having a function which does a full conversion from an MSSQL style query
string to a tsquery.
-- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication
support!