Storage size. Don't shock people with a bigger storage size. Don't remove the option to store less precision with smaller storage. If you only give the one option, people who need less precision will be unhappy about the storage size penalty, exactly the same way people who right now want to store higher precision are unhappy.
Also, who knows what apps actually DO rely on the current precision that would break if the thing suddenly got more precise. Instead of something like "timestamp is now higher precision and twice as big. If you want the old storage size and less precision, use littletimestamp" (argh, argh, argh, I must change everything in my app, and now I need different codebases to be mysql/drizzle compatible!) do this: "there's a new storage type, microtimestamp, with microsecond precision, but it's bigger." (hooray, nothing changes!) On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Brian Aker <[email protected]> wrote: > Does making it more precise create an issue? > > On Dec 23, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Baron Schwartz wrote: > >>> 2) What do people think about adding microsecond to the TIMESTAMP data >>> type >>> by default? This would require 4 more bytes of storage per row. >> >> timestamp with second precision is still useful. Make a new storage >> type, call it MICROTIMESTAMP or something like that. Don't break >> existing behavior. _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
