Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1246552849.27964.502.camel@dn-x300-willij обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 (Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote: > I'd like to see this topic revisited since as far as I can see it > hasn't been seriously discussed in years. I believe the main arguments > against are why do we need more more numeric datatypes and increased > maintenance. It would seem to me that a tinyint datatype maintenance > wise would get all the same updates as the other int types, making it > only a slight increase in maintenance. I think there was 1 more reason > but I can't find the original thread now. > > most (if not all?) of posgresql's major competitor's (mysql, sql > server, db2, etc) support a single bit integer datatype. it would > bring increased compatibility with existing mysql apps esp, making > them easier to port. > > It (in theory?) should also bring a speed enhancement where usable > since it would take less disk space. > > A couple of times I've been told "you don't need tinyint, use boolean" > which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've needed and > integer field that supports number within a small range 0-5 1-10 1-100 > or something similar. I end up using smallint but it's range is huge > for the actual requirements. Completely agree. I'm most or the way through working on this as an add-on module, rather than a new datatype in core. I don't see much reason to include it in core: its not an SQL standard datatype, it complicates catalog entries and most people don't need or want it. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.comPostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: