RE: Case insensitive searches
- From: "Mark W. Farnham" <mwf@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <rjjanuary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Martin Klier'" <usn@xxxxxxxxx>, <sfaroult@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <Herald.ten.Dam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <rajendra.pande@xxxxxxx>, <oracle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:48:57 -0400
Another take (not implying that previous suggestions will not work) on this
is to add the virtual column of upper(<original column>). IF that column
becomes a frequent primary filter the pros and cons of indexing the virtual
column (which will then de facto be a function based index) can be
considered, but the sorting semantics can be directly displayed side by side
<original column> and upper(<original column>) to answer questions that come
up, and it is effective as a secondary filter, group by, and order by column
reference.
I have not tested constraints on virtual columns, but I certainly *hope*
they work the way it seems natural to presume, that a unique constraint on
upper(<original column>) would prevent the simultaneous commitment of both
'Ryan' and 'ryan' in the <original> column.
Excusing the pun, whether this is a useful solution for a specific case will
depend on the details of the case.
mwf
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Ryan January
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 9:12 AM
To: Martin Klier; sfaroult@xxxxxxxxxxxx; Herald.ten.Dam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rajendra.pande@xxxxxxx; oracle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: oracle-l
Subject: Re: Case insensitive searches
Thank you for all the responses so far.
Stéphane: Function based indexes were the first solution that came to mind.
Especially considering that we'd possibly require them to support the NLS
changes, similar to what Martin is suggesting. Unfortunately we felt it
wasn't a good fit for a few reasons. Mainly, the varchar fields are a
secondary search criteria. Table access would generally be through existing
indexes on integer columns. You make a very good point about constraints
and insuring uniqueness. I don't believe we'll run into issues here but it
is something I'll have to keep in mind.
Internationalization was our main reason to avoid storing varchar values
case insensitive within the database. We do support multiple languages and
want to avoid that situation if at all possible.
Herald: We have considered Oracle text in the past, however decided against
it due it's inability to perform partial word searches. The words 'App' and
'Apple' would bring back very different search results.
I'll read back through the Oracle text docs today to see if we overlooked
anything or if it's been extended since we last reviewed it.
Even if it isn't a fit here, I can think of a few other areas it may be
beneficial.
Rajendra: We had not considered regex. The reason we were included within
the discussion was to make a general sweeping change in an attempt to reduce
the impact on the application code base. Ultimately that's why we began to
consider the NLS settings. This is something we may look at if it comes to
modifying the queries within the application.
Norm: This is what I've been considering as a next step. The main
complaint started out that a user felt the search results were incorrectly
sorted, they hadn't yet realized the searches were case sensitive. After we
explained it was working as expected they also brought up the need for case
insensitive searching. (eg: Ryan = ryan) Given that most table access will
be through existing indexes I'm thinking we propose this change as at least
a temporary solution. My worry is that going down this road will cause us
to eventually modify the queries to allow case insensitive compares as well.
Martin: I'm glad to see someone who has had success with this approach.
When we started seeing this issue so soon I felt we may be wondering down a
path rarely traveled. I'm at least willing to put a little additional time
in the NLS settings as a solution. As you've mentioned, we're setting these
params at the session level and only for the few app users who require it.
Unfortunately the query that surfaced this issue was of a moderately complex
view which involves a few sys owned objects. We're still trying to narrow
down the table access which
is actually causing the problem. Since the bug referenced is
specifically sort/nosort operations within the execution plan I expected
this to be an issue with the index itself. If the issue ends up being with
these sys object access methods I'm not sure where we'll go next.
This is something I'll be digging into momentarily.
Did you remove/replace all the existing varchar indexes or additionally
supplement with the NLS specific indexes? Do any of your applications
interact with any oracle owned tables/views? If so, how do you approach
those situations?
On 03/18/2014 07:28 AM, Martin Klier wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> we are running more than 50 projects on 11.2.x with NLS_SORT set to
> BINARY_CI and NLS_COMP to LINGUISTIC.
>
> We do two things:
> * both parameters are only set on session level for the app users and
> NOT for SYSTEM or the dictionary owner.
> * all VARCHAR field indexes are changed to function based:
> NLSSORT(MY_TEXT_FIELD, 'NLS_SORT=BINARY_CI') Because this function is
> what Oracle wraps around any string search when the mentioned
> parameters are set.
>
> Hope this helps
> Martin Klier
>
> Am 17.03.2014 23:02, schrieb Ryan January:
>> to set NLS_SORT to BINARY_CI and NLS_COMP to LINGUISTIC
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
This email is intended solely for the use of the addressee and may contain
information that is confidential, proprietary, or both.
If you receive this email in error please immediately notify the sender and
delete the email..
------------------------------------------------------------------
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
