From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Vincent Veyron <vv(dot)lists(at)wanadoo(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Darren Duncan <darren(at)darrenduncan(dot)net>, Michael Nolan <htfoot(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! |
Date: | 2011-06-26 16:05:29 |
Message-ID: | 20110626160529.GL32313@tamriel.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
* Vincent Veyron (vv(dot)lists(at)wanadoo(dot)fr) wrote:
> Would you mind giving an example of where a boolean field would be a win
> over an integer one?
Where you only ever want 2 (or perhaps 2+NULL) values allowed for the
column. It's about domain, consistency, etc, primairly. That said,
don't we implement boolean fields using a bitmap similar to NULLs? In
which case, it would likely be smaller on disk and more performant as
well.
> I'm asking this because I frequently wonder what is best for my use; I
> normally query postgres via Perl modules, which don't care about boolean
> (the driver converts t/f to 0/1), but I like to tune my fields properly.
Yes, which is pretty horrible of it, imo.
Thanks,
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sfrost | 2011-06-26 16:12:11 | Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-06-26 15:11:44 | Re: Reusing cached prepared statement slow after 5 executions |