single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Caleb Cushing
Тема single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Дата
Msg-id 81bfc67a0907010819m32f39ac3m13e4e59b4c97e422@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответы Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  ("Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>)
Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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.
-- 
Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Dimitri Fontaine
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Extensions User Design
Следующее
От: Josh Berkus
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: 8.5 development schedule