Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype

[Lance J. Andersen]

Daniel John Debrunner wrote: David W. Van Couvering wrote: As I understand it the value of TINYINT is: - Enables of migration of applications to Derby - Allows for better use of storage (which goes in line with our "small footprint" goal) The reason against it is it is a non-standard SQL type. But don't we already have things in Derby that are not part of the SQL standard? I think people are just pointing out all aspects and implications of adding such a type. Adding something that is not in the standard is something that should be considered carefully, and considered on a per-case basis. SYNONYM is an example of something that was added to Derby that is not in the SQL standard, but in that case there is a clearer de-facto standard, it's supported by most databases and it provides some new useful functionality. TINYINT (in my mind) is more borderline, it's not supported by a lot of databases, and not by the databases that hold #1 and #2 in marketshare. Thus I see all the points of view being very useful to leading to a decision. Yes, but they are not the only players in the database market and it also depends on which marketshare you are looking at.  Microsoft has a very large install base and ASA owns over 60% of the embedded marketplace (they also support TINYINT).  Even though MySQL has a different range, it also supports the data type. I also could not find any documentation which indicates that Postgresql supports this datatype. If we soley pick and choose just based on Oracle and DB2 i think that is a mistake IMHO Dan.