There are some newer scalar data types that we support that might be
useful for at least some "unsigned integer use cases" - namely, the
binary type (which is like strings but is just bits).
On 6/16/16 4:10 PM, Ildar Absalyamov wrote:
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
