db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:44:07 GMT
David W. Van Couvering wrote:

> I thought Rick's suggestion of adding the "UNSIGNED" keyword was a good
> solution -- we can get the best of both worlds...

So more non-standard syntax? Why is it better for a SQL Server/Sybase
application to change their types to TINYINT UNSIGNED, instead of
SMALLINT? Or even SMALLINT with a check constraint to limit the range.


> David
> Francois Orsini wrote:
>> Since Sybase, MySQL and MS SQL Server have had support for UNSIGNED
>> TINYINT for many years (at least for 2 of them), offering support for
>> an UNSIGNED TINYINT rather than SIGNED at this point makes more sense
>> and can only be good for Derby's adoption (and that a sufficient
>> reason for adding it IMHO) (SIGNED TINYINT could always be enabled
>> later _if_ required but JDBC does not require the type to be signed in
>> the first place) - it brings value for getting Derby more adopted from
>> users looking to migrate from other known and popular RDBMS (not just
>> from the ones which got most market shares)...and as far as the
>> footprint as previously mentioned, it is good to offer support for a
>> 1-Byte datatype which does matter indeed when running in a
>> small-device environment.
>> --francois

View raw message