single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
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
Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 Re: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5 |
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: