MySQL already has unsigned INT type, and it has double the range of
signed INT type.
It's not just the bigger range that UINT type brings.
If unsigned INT type exists, I wouldn't have to execute create domain
UINT in every database.
If INT unsigned and SERIAL unsigned exist, PostgreSQL would
On mån, 2011-09-26 at 19:41 +0900, crocket wrote:
MySQL already has unsigned INT type, and it has double the range of
signed INT type.
It's not just the bigger range that UINT type brings.
If unsigned INT type exists, I wouldn't have to execute create domain
UINT in every database.
If INT
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:41 AM, crocket crockabisc...@gmail.com wrote:
MySQL already has unsigned INT type, and it has double the range of
signed INT type.
It's not just the bigger range that UINT type brings.
If unsigned INT type exists, I wouldn't have to execute create domain
UINT in
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:41 AM, crocket crockabisc...@gmail.com wrote:
MySQL already has unsigned INT type, and it has double the range of
signed INT type.
It's not just the bigger range that UINT type brings.
If
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Merlin Moncure mmonc...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 5:41 AM, crocket crockabisc...@gmail.com wrote:
MySQL already has unsigned INT type, and it has double the range of
compression is an interesting topic: the guys over at tokudb are
making some wild claims...i'm curious if they are real, and what the
real tradeoffs are.
I don't know how much of the performance they claim comes from
compression and how much from the different indexing technique they
use
