----- Original Message ----- From: "Zabach, Elke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Umberto'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 4:27 AM Subject: RE: SAPDB 7.4 LIKE pattern matching ranges
> Umberto wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > We are implementing a simple billing system using SAPDB 7.4 > > under Linux > > (Redhat 9 and SuSE 8.1) that requires some basic pattern matching with > > ranges. > > > > According to this thread, it supports just what we need: > > > > http://listserv.sap.com/pipermail/sapdb.general/2001-September/008355.html > > > However, the range spec doesn't seem to work. > > > > For example, assuming that the table Billing has a record with the value > > '9665277273' in the cNumber column, the following query does not return any > > results: > > > > SELECT * FROM Billing WHERE cNumber LIKE '966(0-5)*' > > > > On the other hand, this does: > > > > SELECT * FROM Billing WHERE cNumber LIKE '9665%' > > > > The latter is not practical since the user would have to query for every > > number between 9660% and 9665% individually. > > > > Am I missing something? > > Bad luck. Because of our main customer (our own company) we had to change > the like-predicate according to SQL92-standard, meaning that only > '%' and '_' as written in the docs > http://www.sapdb.org/7.4/htmhelp/8c/ccce27c71c11d2a97100a0c9449261/frameset. htm > are handled starting with 7.4.3.17. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning behind this. Since it already supported '%' and '_' *in addition to* ranges, what benefit was there to remove the ranges? > In your example cNumber >= '9660' and cNumber < '9666' could be helpful. > in more complex situations (several ranges in the like-pattern) this will not do, > unfortunately. This doesn't help because the fact of the matter is that the patterns are actually stored in the database and whole numbers are provided by user input. So, the query actually looks like this: SELECT * FROM Billing WHERE '96611623652' LIKE cPattern This would normally match a record where cPattern = '966(0-5)*'. What benefit was there in removing a feature that did not interfere with the SQL92-standard basic functionality? If we go to REGEXP instead in a future release, I assume we'll lose the ability to use the index as in MySQL. _______________________________________________ sapdb.general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
