I guess my point was not to use unsigned integers int the case when int64 is not enough, but to allow using say uint32 instead of int64.
> On Jun 16, 2016, at 16:03, Ian Maxon <[email protected]> wrote: > > My 0.2c is that int64 is big enough if size was the consideration. Usually, > the times that I have wished I had unsigned integers in Java, were not > related to size constraints, but rather when I had to implement something > that required a lot of bitwise operations, since signedness makes that more > complicated. Usually int64 is big enough, and if it isn't, uint64 isn't > much better because you are probably representing something so huge that > arbitrary precision arithmetic is more appropriate. > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Ildar Absalyamov < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Things like Spark and Flink don’t do that as well, but because they need >> integration with proper Java types. >> >>> On Jun 16, 2016, at 15:45, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> Is there any database or SQL implementation supporting that? >>> Ok, it turns out MySQL supports that, while Postgres, MS SQL and Hive do >>> not have that. >>> >>> Best, >>> Yingyi >>> >>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Yingyi Bu <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>> I guess part of the reason why we do that is because Java used to lack >>>> native support of unsigned integers. >>>> Is there any database or SQL implementation supporting that? >>>> >>>> FYI: >>>> >>>> >> http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/53050/why-arent-unsigned-integer-types-available-in-the-top-database-platforms >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> Yingyi >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Ildar Absalyamov < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi devs, >>>>> >>>>> As I was generating various data distributions for statistics >> experiments >>>>> one thing kept bothering me. >>>>> All Asterix integer types (int8, int16, int32, int64) are signed. >> However >>>>> majority of real use cases does not require negative integer values. >> Seems >>>>> like we are waisting half of the data range on something which does >> not get >>>>> used that often. I guess part of the reason why we do that is because >> Java >>>>> used to lack native support of unsigned integers. But since Java 8 >> there >>>>> are methods which do unsigned comparison and division (summation, >>>>> subtraction, multiplication are the same in both signed and unsigned >>>>> cases). So it seems like conversion to support unsigned integers would >> not >>>>> be that difficult. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts on whether we need unsigned integers in the type system? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Ildar >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> Best regards, >> Ildar >> >> Best regards, Ildar
