From: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
Date: | 2010-02-23 23:51:43 |
Message-ID: | 206E5F2A-9E9B-4D46-A260-42FBAFD2273B@richrelevance.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sep 7, 2009, at 7:05 PM, Karl Denninger wrote:
The individual boolean fields don't kill me and in terms of some of the application issues they're actually rather easy to code for.
The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who install and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra bits for "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not, and since the executable is a binary it instantly becomes a huge problem for everyone but me.
It does appear, however, that a bitfield doesn't evaluate any differently than does an integer used with a mask, so there you have it..... it is what it is, and if I want this sort of selectivity in the search I have no choice.
Perhaps, use a view to encapsulate the extensible bit fields? Then custom installations just modify the view? I haven't thought through that too far, but it might work.
-- Karl
<karl.vcf>
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org<mailto:pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Crooke | 2010-02-24 08:32:40 | Re: SSD + RAID |
Previous Message | Dave Crooke | 2010-02-23 23:37:04 | Thx and additional Q's ..... |