asterixdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yingyi Bu <buyin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: type name changes
Date Tue, 18 Oct 2016 05:26:24 GMT
>> We used int for the abbreviation
>> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an
abbreviation
>> for INT32?

We didn't have "int" as a type name.
A constant integer value by default was an int64.  That's unchanged.
Now, a constant integer value by default is a bigint.

>> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
Other than type names, nothing is changed. I think we stopped using suffix
quite a while ago.

Best,
Yingyi


On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 10:14 PM, Taewoo Kim <wangsaeu@gmail.com> wrote:

> I checked the newly changed documentation. We used int for the abbreviation
> for INT64 (I assume that is now bigint?) type. Now, INT is an abbreviation
> for INT32? I thought we converted the default type to INT64 (bigint).
> Aren't INT32 type displaying i32 as suffix?
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Yingyi Bu <buyingyi@gmail.com>
> Date: Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 9:55 PM
> Subject: type name changes
> To: users@asterixdb.apache.org
>
>
> Hi users,
>
> Recently, we did some name changes for builtin types to better align with
> SQL's types:
> https://ci.apache.org/projects/asterixdb/datamodel.html
>
> There will be a further name change that changes "record" to "object", to
> better align with JSON.
> The purpose of renaming those builtin types is to lower the usage bar for
> users who are using either SQL or JSON.
>
> Note that all the old type names should still work as it used to be.
> However, it is better to move to new names for future use cases.
>
> Best,
> Yingyi
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message