Re: Efficient Boolean Storage

From: SZUCS Gábor <surrano(at)mailbox(dot)hu>
To: <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Efficient Boolean Storage
Date: 2002-12-04 19:20:17
Message-ID: 009401c29bca$2e337ae0$0a03a8c0@fejleszt2
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

I think it is because of the MSB order. Would it be implemented as LSB, I'm
sure the high byte would be the one to be padded :)

G.
--
while (!asleep()) sheep++;

---------------------------- cut here ------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jean-Luc Lachance" <jllachan(at)nsd(dot)ca>
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 7:39 PM

> It is unintuitive to me that the low byte be padded. Shouldn't it be
> the high byte?
>
> JLL
>
> Joe Conway wrote:
> > * bitdata -- bit string, most significant byte first

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fernando Nasser 2002-12-04 19:21:34 Re: UTF encoding error
Previous Message Terry Yapt 2002-12-04 19:19:08 passwords in pg_shadow (duplicate).