db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Francois Orsini <francois.ors...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
Date Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:36:40 GMT
On 11/14/05, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
> >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?
> >
> Some customers may not care if they have to double the column size.
> Others may care.


Dan's argument which is mine too I believe is in respect with users
migrating from Sybase/MS SQL Server apps using TINYINT to Derby - if we
provide an unsigned type by default then they don't have anything to change
in respect with that type (same semantics) - MySQL has support for both
SIGNED and UNSIGNED so what not have (unsigned) TINYINT supported in Derby
by default and encompass a wider range of databases supporting (unsigned)
TINYINT which in the end will ease migration and help Derby's adoption...

>Or even SMALLINT with a check constraint to limit the range.
> >
> >Dan.
> >
> >
> >
> You can also implement NOT NULL as a check contraint. Most databases
> consider that to be an inefficiency which it's worth optimizing with
> custom logic.
>

Mime
View raw message