> > Does the SQL92 standard have to be purchased from the ANSI Board?
> 
> afaik, yes.
> 
> > Well, my actual question has to do with LIKE.  Could anyone who has
> a
> > copy of a standard send me the PATTERN syntax/meanings for LIKE in
> > SQL92?
> 
> Well, you may be hoping for more than is in any of your reference
> books,
> but there isn't any more to tell :)
> 
>   % ==> match any (sub)string
>   _ ==> match any single character
>   everything else matches itself
> 
> In SQL92 (but not yet in Postgres; can't remember if there is a
> workaround):
> 
>   LIKE 'pattern' ESCAPE 'char'
> 
> allows a single character "char" if it precedes the two pattern
> matching
> characters to demote the "%" or "_" to act like a normal single
> character. The Postgres regex stuff is much more powerful.
> 
> Sorry, I think that's it :(
> 
>                     - Tom
Well, In all of the major Databases that I have worked with there is
also the "[character_set]" matching operator.  
So a pattern of '[A-D]%' would match all word beginning with "A", "B",
"C", or "D", and "[^character_set]" matches everything but the set.
Looking at the current PgSQL like code this is ignored as well as the
ESCAPE syntax.  I'm trying to resolve the problem we have of LIKE not
matching the pattern "%%" to anything even "%".
But, looking at the code I see that "%%" or "%%%%%%%%" should be equal
to "%" so it's not the LIKE matching code that's causing the problem
(also, read I'm looking in the wrong spot).

Does anybody know if the "[character_set]" stuff is part of the
standard?
Can anyone point me to another place where the pattern could/would get
munged?
Also, wouldn't doing a memmove from the DATA portion of a varlena struct
cause it problems if it was accessed again?
		Thanks again,
		-DEJ

Tue, 29 Sep 1998 12:03:06 -0500
"Jackson, DeJuan" <djackson@cpsgroup.com>
RE: [HACKERS] SQL92
> Well, In all of the major Databases that I have worked with there is
> also the "[character_set]" matching operator.
> Does anybody know if the "[character_set]" stuff is part of the
> standard?

Hoping against hope, eh? afaik those are all extensions (though SQL3 has
some enhanced functionality with the SIMILAR operator). From my copy of
the second draft standard published in 1992:

<like predicate> uses the triadic operator LIKE (or the inverse,
NOT LIKE), operating on three character strings and returning
a Boolean. LIKE determines whether or not a character string
"matches" a given "pattern" (also a character string). The char-
acters '%' (percent) and '_' (underscore) have special meaning when
they occur in the pattern. The optional third argument is a charac-
ter string containing exactly one character, known as the "escape
character", for use when a percent or underscore is required in the
pattern without its special meaning.

What version of Postgres are you running? I vaguely recall some
complaints and fixes in the sort-of-recent past. Don't know if it
affected simple patterns or only more complicated stuff.

Can you send a simple

  SELECT text 'your string here' LIKE 'your pattern here';

which doesn't behave as you would expect? That would make this a bit
less theoretical...

                  - Tom

Wed, 30 Sep 1998 01:47:15 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92
Jackson, DeJuan wrote:
> 
> > > Does the SQL92 standard have to be purchased from the ANSI Board?
> >
> > afaik, yes.
> >
> > > Well, my actual question has to do with LIKE.  Could anyone who has
> > a
> > > copy of a standard send me the PATTERN syntax/meanings for LIKE in
> > > SQL92?
> >
> > Well, you may be hoping for more than is in any of your reference
> > books,
> > but there isn't any more to tell :)
> >
> >   % ==> match any (sub)string
> >   _ ==> match any single character
> >   everything else matches itself
> >
> > In SQL92 (but not yet in Postgres; can't remember if there is a
> > workaround):
> >
> >   LIKE 'pattern' ESCAPE 'char'
> >
> > allows a single character "char" if it precedes the two pattern
> > matching
> > characters to demote the "%" or "_" to act like a normal single
> > character. The Postgres regex stuff is much more powerful.
> >
> > Sorry, I think that's it :(
> >
> >                     - Tom
> Well, In all of the major Databases that I have worked with there is
> also the "[character_set]" matching operator.
> So a pattern of '[A-D]%' would match all word beginning with "A", "B",
> "C", or "D", and "[^character_set]" matches everything but the set.
> Looking at the current PgSQL like code this is ignored as well as the
> ESCAPE syntax.  I'm trying to resolve the problem we have of LIKE not
> matching the pattern "%%" to anything even "%".
> But, looking at the code I see that "%%" or "%%%%%%%%" should be equal
> to "%" so it's not the LIKE matching code that's causing the problem
> (also, read I'm looking in the wrong spot).
> 
> Does anybody know if the "[character_set]" stuff is part of the
> standard?
The SQL92 LIKE:

    character-string-expression [NOT] LIKE pattern [ESCAPE
'escape-char']
    
allows only the special characters % and _

You need The SQL3 SIMILAR

    character-string-expression [NOT] SIMILAR TO pattern [ESCAPE
'escape-char']

in this case pattern can involve additional special characters, not just
% and _ as in LIKE, but every regular expression or "[character_set]"
like you said. (Refer to "A Guide to SQL Standard 4th edition
Date-Rarwen, page 505).

     Jose'

Wed, 30 Sep 1998 12:14:12 +0200
"Jose' Soares" <jose@sferacarta.com>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92
> > > Does the SQL92 standard have to be purchased from the ANSI Board?
> > 
> > afaik, yes.
> > 
> > > Well, my actual question has to do with LIKE.  Could anyone who has
> > a
> > > copy of a standard send me the PATTERN syntax/meanings for LIKE in
> > > SQL92?
> > 
> > Well, you may be hoping for more than is in any of your reference
> > books,
> > but there isn't any more to tell :)
> > 
> >   % ==> match any (sub)string
> >   _ ==> match any single character
> >   everything else matches itself
> > 
> > In SQL92 (but not yet in Postgres; can't remember if there is a
> > workaround):
> > 
> >   LIKE 'pattern' ESCAPE 'char'
> > 
> > allows a single character "char" if it precedes the two pattern
> > matching
> > characters to demote the "%" or "_" to act like a normal single
> > character. The Postgres regex stuff is much more powerful.
> > 
> > Sorry, I think that's it :(
> > 
> >                     - Tom
> Well, In all of the major Databases that I have worked with there is
> also the "[character_set]" matching operator.  
> So a pattern of '[A-D]%' would match all word beginning with "A", "B",
> "C", or "D", and "[^character_set]" matches everything but the set.
> Looking at the current PgSQL like code this is ignored as well as the
> ESCAPE syntax.  I'm trying to resolve the problem we have of LIKE not
> matching the pattern "%%" to anything even "%".
> But, looking at the code I see that "%%" or "%%%%%%%%" should be equal
> to "%" so it's not the LIKE matching code that's causing the problem
> (also, read I'm looking in the wrong spot).
> 
> Does anybody know if the "[character_set]" stuff is part of the
> standard?
> Can anyone point me to another place where the pattern could/would get
> munged?
> Also, wouldn't doing a memmove from the DATA portion of a varlena struct
> cause it problems if it was accessed again?
> 		Thanks again,

Added to TODO list:

	* have LIKE support character classes, 'pg_[a-c]%'

I did not realize we didn't have that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026


Thu, 1 Oct 1998 21:48:59 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92
> The SQL92 LIKE:
> 
>     character-string-expression [NOT] LIKE pattern [ESCAPE
> 'escape-char']
>     
> allows only the special characters % and _
> 
> You need The SQL3 SIMILAR
> 
>     character-string-expression [NOT] SIMILAR TO pattern [ESCAPE
> 'escape-char']
> 
> in this case pattern can involve additional special characters, not just
> % and _ as in LIKE, but every regular expression or "[character_set]"
> like you said. (Refer to "A Guide to SQL Standard 4th edition
> Date-Rarwen, page 505).
> 
>      Jose'
> 
> 

TODO item changed to:

	* add SIMILAR to allow character classes, 'pg_[a-c]%'


-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026


Thu, 1 Oct 1998 21:58:09 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92
> > You need The SQL3 SIMILAR
> > in this case pattern can involve additional special characters, not 
> > just % and _ as in LIKE,
> TODO item changed to:
>         * add SIMILAR to allow character classes, 'pg_[a-c]%'

The annoying thing is that our regex "~" operators do all of this and
more, but presumably don't have the right behavior for underscore and
for percent. Should we look at the regex code and try to get it to be
compatible (for v6.5...)?

                        - Tom

Fri, 02 Oct 1998 05:03:32 +0000
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92
> > > You need The SQL3 SIMILAR
> > > in this case pattern can involve additional special characters, not 
> > > just % and _ as in LIKE,
> > TODO item changed to:
> >         * add SIMILAR to allow character classes, 'pg_[a-c]%'
> 
> The annoying thing is that our regex "~" operators do all of this and
> more, but presumably don't have the right behavior for underscore and
> for percent. Should we look at the regex code and try to get it to be
> compatible (for v6.5...)?

Not sure.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://www.op.net/~candle
  maillist@candle.pha.pa.us            |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026


Fri, 2 Oct 1998 01:10:31 -0400 (EDT)
Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: [HACKERS] SQL92