On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 12:24 PM Rob Willett <rob.sql...@robertwillett.com> wrote:
> 5. SQLite seems to be able to do anything we want it to. [...] > Other people seem worried about the 'lack' of some datatypes, we do > masses of data and date conversations as needed and it's never been a > speed issue or any issue. (since I'm often one of those "other people", I feel compelled to reply to that one) As Keith wrote above in this thread, it's all about "integrity", and why I'd want more datatypes in SQLite. An integer column (e.g. number of seconds since Epoc, or gregorian days, or else) or a text column (e.g. RFC XYZ datetime, local-TZ or not) says nothing about that column, and certainly does not enforce anything by itself. Rare are the people actually adding CHECK constraints to enforce those. So having more specialized datatypes provides more semantic information in the schema itself, and that a good thing, a very good thing indeed. Of course you can do anything with SQLite despite that, or the "flexible typing" dear to DRH, just like you can code anything in a duck-typing scripting language like you can in a statically typed language. But more typing does help in the long run IMHO, and is very valuable. FWIW... --DD _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
