[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1927?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16114633#comment-16114633 ]
Julian Hyde commented on CALCITE-1927: -------------------------------------- The BIT type is obsolete in the SQL standard, so I don't feel strongly about this. Anyone using Avatica to access Calcite or Hbase (via Phoenix) will either be using BOOLEAN, BINARY or VARBINARY. I can't imagine a case where people would want, say, 11 bits but weren't prepared to use a data structure that gave them 16. Neither does Calcite support bit strings, e.g. {{b'101'}}. In [SQL Server|https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/t-sql/data-types/bit-transact-sql] it seems to be limited to 1 bit (0, 1 or null), so it has the same information content as BOOLEAN. [MySQL|https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.7/en/bit-type.html] allows {{BIT(m)}} with m up to 64. Each bit can have a value of 0 or 1. > Mapping for Types.BIT: boolean or BitSet? > ----------------------------------------- > > Key: CALCITE-1927 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-1927 > Project: Calcite > Issue Type: Bug > Components: avatica > Affects Versions: 1.13.0 > Reporter: Vladimir Sitnikov > Labels: pgjdbc, postgresql > > Currently Avatica implements `Types.BIT` as `Boolean` (see > https://github.com/apache/calcite-avatica/blob/4db1fb9c66db8ccebc9e96ce678154ec69c557f0/core/src/main/java/org/apache/calcite/avatica/AvaticaSite.java#L227-L230 > ) > Certain databases (e.g. PostgreSQL) have {{bit\(n)}} and {{varbit\(n)}} data > types that are "bit strings" (see > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.6/static/datatype-bit.html ) > If both used together, {{getObject}} just blows when trying to convert thing > like {{'01101'}} to a boolean. > I wonder what should be the behavior for {{Types.BIT}}. > The original discussion is here: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/issues/908 > PS. I'm not using Avatica + PostgreSQL + varbit combo yet, however I just > want to weight different implementation options, and make it simpler for > different JDBC implementations to talk to each other. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.4.14#64029)