On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 13:38 -0400, Robert Treat wrote:
On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
A couple of times I've been told you don't need tinyint, use boolean
which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've
On Thursday 02 July 2009 12:40:49 Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
A couple of times I've been told you don't need tinyint, use boolean
which is not true, several projects I've worked on I've needed and
integer field that supports number within a
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:19 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
I'd like to see this topic revisited since as far as I can see it
hasn't been seriously discussed in years. I believe the main arguments
against are why do we need more more numeric datatypes and increased
maintenance. It would seem to
I'd like to see this topic revisited since as far as I can see it
hasn't been seriously discussed in years. I believe the main arguments
against are why do we need more more numeric datatypes and increased
maintenance. It would seem to me that a tinyint datatype maintenance
wise would get all the
Caleb Cushing xenoterrac...@gmail.com wrote:
most (if not all?) of posgresql's major competitor's (mysql, sql
server, db2, etc) support a single bit integer datatype.
A couple of times I've been told you don't need tinyint, use
boolean which is not true, several projects I've worked on
Caleb.
I'd like to see this topic revisited since as far as I can see it
hasn't been seriously discussed in years. I believe the main arguments
against are why do we need more more numeric datatypes and increased
maintenance. It would seem to me that a tinyint datatype maintenance
wise would
Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com writes:
But ... the nice thing about PostgreSQL is that data types can be loaded
at runtime. Which means that you don't need INT1 in core for it to be
useful to you and others; just write the data type and put it on
pgFoundry.
Yeah. The argument against that
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittnerkevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
I think you mean byte where you've said bit.
you're correct. I'm being a nerf.
Boolean would be
adequate for a single bit, and I haven't (so far) seen any database
which supports both a single-bit type and a
Caleb Cushing xenoterrac...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 11:41 AM, Kevin
Grittnerkevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Many databases
support a TINYINT type as a single-byte value, although I'm not sure
there's consistency on whether that's a signed or unsigned value.
wouldn't any
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Josh Berkusj...@agliodbs.com wrote:
The main reason not to have one is that given byte-alignment, 95% of the
time using a tinyint would save no actual disk space or memory over just
using INT2 (or indeed INT4). I'll point out that the MySQLers are enamored
of
Incidentally there *is* a single-byte integer data type in Postgres,
it's called char (the quote marks are necessary in SQL due to the
char(n) data type).
It's a bit weird though, mainly because its output format is to output
ascii characters -- kind of like how C's single-byte integer data type
11 matches
Mail list logo
