>> We used int for the abbreviation >> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an abbreviation >> 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. Best, Yingyi 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: > https://ci.apache.org/projects/asterixdb/datamodel.html > > 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. > > Best, > Yingyi >