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
>applications.
>  
>
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
>TINYINT.
>  
>
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.

Cheers,
-Rick

Mime
View raw message