db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dag H. Wanvik" <Dag.Wan...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:17:01 GMT

>>>>> "Francois" == Francois Orsini <francois.orsini@gmail.com> wrote:

Francois> Dan's argument which is mine too I believe is in respect with users
Francois> migrating from Sybase/MS SQL Server apps using TINYINT to Derby - if we
Francois> provide an unsigned type by default then they don't have anything to change
Francois> in respect with that type (same semantics) - MySQL has support for both
Francois> SIGNED and UNSIGNED so what not have (unsigned) TINYINT supported in Derby
Francois> by default and encompass a wider range of databases supporting (unsigned)
Francois> TINYINT which in the end will ease migration and help Derby's adoption...

So it would seem this boils down to which consideration is more
important; semantic consistency (=>TINYINT is by default signed, since
other integer types are signed in Derby), or ease of portability to
Derby (=> TINYINT is unsigned by default, since 2 major players use

I would argue that a single byte data type is useful in its own right,
and will favor signed semantics as the default - to keep things clean,
SQL is ugly enough as it is..  If we want the unsigned version
also, I would vote for the UNSIGNED keyword, the type is non-standard
syntax in SQL anyway.

Disclaimer: I guess I should add I am a little biased against unsigned
integer types in general, I have seen far too many bugs due to
indiscriminate mixing of signed and unsigned types over the years ;-)


View raw message