Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5

From: Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: single bit integer (TINYINT) revisited for 8.5
Date: 2009-07-01 15:19:48
Message-ID: 81bfc67a0907010819m32f39ac3m13e4e59b4c97e422@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
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 same updates as the other int types, making it
only a slight increase in maintenance. I think there was 1 more reason
but I can't find the original thread now.

most (if not all?) of posgresql's major competitor's (mysql, sql
server, db2, etc) support a single bit integer datatype. it would
bring increased compatibility with existing mysql apps esp, making
them easier to port.

It (in theory?) should also bring a speed enhancement where usable
since it would take less disk space.

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 small range 0-5 1-10 1-100
or something similar. I end up using smallint but it's range is huge
for the actual requirements.
-- 
Caleb Cushing

http://xenoterracide.blogspot.com

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2009-07-01 15:38:23
Subject: Re: 8.5 development schedule
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-07-01 15:04:39
Subject: Re: Extensions User Design

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group