On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 13:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
> On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> > > A couple of times I've been told "you don't need tinyint, use boolean"
> > > which is not true, several projects I've work
On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> > 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 wit
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 t
Incidentally there *is* a single-byte integer data type in Postgres,
it's called "char" (the quote marks are necessary in SQL due to the
char(n) data type).
It's a bit weird though, mainly because its output format is to output
ascii characters -- kind of like how C's single-byte integer data type
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> The main reason not to have one is that given byte-alignment, 95% of the
> time using a tinyint would save no actual disk space or memory over just
> using INT2 (or indeed INT4). I'll point out that the MySQLers are enamored
> of the 3-byte int
Caleb Cushing writes:
> On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
> Grittner wrote:
>> Many databases
>> support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
>> there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.
> wouldn't any implementation in pg support both?
Introd
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittner wrote:
> I think you mean byte where you've said bit.
you're correct. I'm being a nerf.
> Boolean would be
> adequate for a single bit, and I haven't (so far) seen any database
> which supports both a single-bit type and a boolean.
wasn't aware of
Josh Berkus writes:
> But ... the nice thing about PostgreSQL is that data types can be loaded
> at runtime. Which means that you don't need INT1 in core for it to be
> useful to you and others; just write the data type and put it on
> pgFoundry.
Yeah. The argument against that used to be th
Caleb.
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
Caleb Cushing wrote:
> most (if not all?) of posgresql's major competitor's (mysql, sql
> server, db2, etc) support a single bit integer datatype.
> 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 in
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 s
11 matches
Mail list logo
