>> We used int for the abbreviation
>> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an
>> for INT32?
We didn't have "int" as a type name.
A constant integer value by default was an int64. That's unchanged.
Now, a constant integer value by default is a bigint.
>> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
Other than type names, nothing is changed. I think we stopped using suffix
quite a while ago.
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Taewoo Kim <wangs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I checked the newly changed documentation. We used int for the abbreviation
> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an abbreviation
> for INT32? I thought we converted the default type to INT64 (bigint).
> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM
> Subject: type name changes
> To: us...@asterixdb.apache.org
> Hi users,
> Recently, we did some name changes for builtin types to better align with
> SQL's types:
> There will be a further name change that changes "record" to "object", to
> better align with JSON.
> The purpose of renaming those builtin types is to lower the usage bar for
> users who are using either SQL or JSON.
> Note that all the old type names should still work as it used to be.
> However, it is better to move to new names for future use cases.