Re: Postgres do not support tinyint?
От | Igor Korot |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres do not support tinyint? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+FnnTz6GK0rKuC+g+LH25-N75ej-WGq7WZ1kpQZ9gtSbDeA+g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres do not support tinyint? (Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Postgres do not support tinyint?
|
Список | pgsql-general |
Hi, Ron, On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 11:24 PM Ron Johnson <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 12:06 AM Igor Korot <ikorot01@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, ALL, >> According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/datatype-numeric.html, the >> smallest numeric type supports numbers from -32768 to 32767/ >> >> My data will be in a range of [0..4], and so I guess my DB table will waste >> space, right? > > > 1. It's not 1994 anymore, when 8M rows was enormous. > 2. Record structures are padded by word size, so tinyint wouldn't matter unless you specifically ordered the fixed widthcolumns from largest to smallest size when creating the table. > 3. The "bit" type might serve your needs. I don't see the "bit" field here: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-numeric.html... Thank you.. > > -- > Death to <Redacted>, and butter sauce. > Don't boil me, I'm still alive. > <Redacted> lobster!
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: