db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Ander...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:10 GMT

Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>>As I understand it the value of TINYINT is:
>>- Enables of migration of applications to Derby
>>- Allows for better use of storage (which goes in line with our "small
>>footprint" goal)
>>The reason against it is it is a non-standard SQL type.  But don't we
>>already have things in Derby that are not part of the SQL standard?
>I think people are just pointing out all aspects and implications of
>adding such a type. Adding something that is not in the standard is
>something that should be considered carefully, and considered on a
>per-case basis.
>SYNONYM is an example of something that was added to Derby that is not
>in the SQL standard, but in that case there is a clearer de-facto
>standard, it's supported by most databases and it provides some new
>useful functionality.
>TINYINT (in my mind) is more borderline, it's not supported by a lot of
>databases, and not by the databases that hold #1 and #2 in marketshare.
>Thus I see all the points of view being very useful to leading to a
Yes, but they are not the only players in the database market and it 
also depends on which marketshare you are looking at.  Microsoft has a 
very large install base and ASA owns over 60% of the embedded 
marketplace (they also support TINYINT).  Even though MySQL has a 
different range, it also supports the data type.

I also could not find any documentation which indicates that Postgresql 
supports this datatype.

If we soley pick and choose just based on Oracle and DB2 i think that is 
a mistake IMHO


View raw message