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 Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:22:08 GMT
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:


>How much demand for this type, as you've described is there? Are many
>Java applications using byte for fields? My guess would have been that
>any requests for TINYINT would have been due to existing database
I think Lance is right: we can see demand for this type in the fact that 
a relatively new database like MySQL bothered to add it.

>One potential issue is that we are creating a non-standard datatype that
>is in conflict with the existing type of the same name by SQL Server and
>Sybase. Will this cause more problems for users of Derby as they try to
>migrate off those databases? Of course in some ways it's not much better
>if we go 0-255, as then it's in conflict with MySQL. Though I would be
>interested to know if the new strict flag in MySQL has any effect on
Right, we need both signed and unsigned bytes to ease all of these 
migration paths. That's the appeal of starting out with a signed TINYINT 
and adding the UNSIGNED keyword later on.


View raw message