On Sep 27, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Brian Dunavant wrote:
> db=# select 'foo' where (9 & 1) > 0;
A HA
Thank you Brian and David -- I didn't realize that you needed to do the
comparison to the result.
(or convert the result as these work):
select 'foo' where (9 & 1)::bool;
select
If it's in integer columns, bitwise logic works just like you would
expect it to as well.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/functions-math.html
db=# select 'foo' where (9 & 1) > 0;
?column?
--
foo
(1 row)
db=# select 'foo' where (9 & 2) > 0;
?column?
--
(0 rows)
Please include the list in all replies.
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
>
> On Sep 26, 2016, at 5:04 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Vanasco
> wrote:
>
>> The documentation doesn't have
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote:
> The documentation doesn't have any examples for SELECT for the bitwise
> operators,
Um...
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/functions-bitstring.html
SELECT B'111'::varbit & B'101'::varbit =
We've been storing some "enumerated"/"set" data in postgresql as INT or BIT(32)
for several years for some flags/toggles on records.
This was preferable for storage to the ENUM type (or multiple columns), as we
often changed the number of enumerated options or their labels -- and computing