db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hille...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:20:50 GMT
At this point, I think we have agreed on the facts about how JDBC and 
various SQL databases treat the TINYINT type. I think I would not be 
going out on a limb if I said that there is no industry-wide consensus 
about whether TINYINT is a signed or unsigned quantity.

I logged this enhancment request because it seemed that re-enabling 
TINYINT would be low hanging fruit. Furthermore, to me TINYINT should be 
a signed integer just like its bigger sisters SMALLINT, INTEGER, and 
LONG. It makes sense to me that the premier Java database should have 
datatypes which correspond as exactly as possible with the Java 
datatypes. This would be the most natural fit for persisting the data 
from Java applications, whether flattened by hand or by off-the-shelf 
O-R mapping technologies.

Currently, we are missing two of these Java datatypes: boolean 
(java.sql.BOOLEAN) and byte (java.sql.TINYINT).

Exposing a signed TINYINT does not violate any standard we care about: 
ANSI is silent on the matter, and JDBC is compatible with this 
interpretation. A signed TINYINT would be an easy, natural, and useful 
addition for the Java applications which are our bread-and-butter customers.

I agree that in the future, to support migration from MySQL, we should 
consider implementing the UNSIGNED keyword, allowing all of our integer 
datatypes to support their unsigned ranges. That, however, is some other 
itch to scratch.

Cheers,
-Rick

Mime
View raw message