db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Rick Hillegas (JIRA)" <derby-...@db.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:29:03 GMT
    [ http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-695?page=comments#action_12357165 ] 

Rick Hillegas commented on DERBY-695:
-------------------------------------

I'm sorry for garbling your argument. I share your feeling that where ANSI does propose solutions,
we should consider them carefully. Merely relying on ANSI though, we would not have indexes
or system procedures. We have not recently felt constrained by the fact that ANSI omits features.
If you are willing, I would like to explore why TINYINT should have to sustain an attack not
mounted against, say, optimizer hints.

The 8-bit integer is a useful feature, as evidenced by its presence in Java, C#, JDBC, ODBC,
DRDA, and several major databases.

> Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
> ------------------------------
>
>          Key: DERBY-695
>          URL: http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-695
>      Project: Derby
>         Type: New Feature
>     Reporter: Rick Hillegas

>
> I would like to collect here the arguments for and against re-enabling the TINYINT datatype.
Once this discussion calms down, we can schedule a vote on the issue.
> Background: Cloudscape used to support the TINYINT datatype, which was an 8 bit int.
This datatype was hidden from customers as part of an effort to remove all datatypes not supported
by DB2. Re-enabling the datatype would not require a lot of effort. Some arguments for and
against re-enabling this datatype can be found on the November 2005 email thread titled "New
features for next release .... (Was: Grant and Revoke ... DERBY-464...)".
> Here are the arguments in favor so far:
> + This datatype is defined by one of our key standards, JDBC. It is in JDBC 2, 3, and
4, all of the JDBC revs supported by Derby 10.2.
> + This datatype is supported by some important databases, including MySQL, Microsoft
SQL Server, and Sybase.
> Here are the arguments against so far:
> - This datatype is not defined by our other key standard, ANSI SQL. Here our two main
standards diverge.
> - This datatype is not supported by some important databases, including Oracle, DB2,
and (some) Informix databases.
> Against this proposal, it was also argued that there was some sort of friction with ODBC.
I do not understand this argument: SQL_TINYINT is an ODBC datatype. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/odbc/htm/odbcsql_data_types.asp.
> A friction with .NET was also suggested but I don't understand this either. "byte" and
"Sbyte" are the .NET 8-bit integer types. See http://www.codersource.net/csharp_tutorial_data_types.html.
> A friction with Perl was also suggested but I don't understand this either.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators:
   http://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see:
   http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira


Mime
View raw message