Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:13:10 -0500
From: "Lance J. Andersen" <Lance.Andersen@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [jira] Commented: (DERBY-695) Re-enable the TINYINT datatype
In-reply-to: <43750347.6010300@debrunners.com>
Sender: Lance.Andersen@Sun.COM
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <43750966.4090807@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="Boundary_(ID_ZAdgRSCK6WbUsTijkggVCA)"
References: <339690920.1131577505091.JavaMail.jira@ajax.apache.org>
 <43728B6F.1080300@sun.com> <43728D62.80300@debrunners.com>
 <437292F3.1070504@sun.com> <4374CC3D.5050007@debrunners.com>
 <4374F8C4.2060708@sun.com> <4374FD2A.5090101@sun.com>
 <43750347.6010300@debrunners.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--Boundary_(ID_ZAdgRSCK6WbUsTijkggVCA)
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT


Daniel John Debrunner wrote:

>David W. Van Couvering wrote:
>
>  
>
>>As I understand it the value of TINYINT is:
>>
>>- Enables of migration of applications to Derby
>>- Allows for better use of storage (which goes in line with our "small
>>footprint" goal)
>>
>>The reason against it is it is a non-standard SQL type.  But don't we
>>already have things in Derby that are not part of the SQL standard?
>>    
>>
>
>I think people are just pointing out all aspects and implications of
>adding such a type. Adding something that is not in the standard is
>something that should be considered carefully, and considered on a
>per-case basis.
>
>SYNONYM is an example of something that was added to Derby that is not
>in the SQL standard, but in that case there is a clearer de-facto
>standard, it's supported by most databases and it provides some new
>useful functionality.
>
>TINYINT (in my mind) is more borderline, it's not supported by a lot of
>databases, and not by the databases that hold #1 and #2 in marketshare.
>Thus I see all the points of view being very useful to leading to a
>decision.
>  
>
Yes, but they are not the only players in the database market and it 
also depends on which marketshare you are looking at.  Microsoft has a 
very large install base and ASA owns over 60% of the embedded 
marketplace (they also support TINYINT).  Even though MySQL has a 
different range, it also supports the data type.

I also could not find any documentation which indicates that Postgresql 
supports this datatype.

If we soley pick and choose just based on Oracle and DB2 i think that is 
a mistake IMHO


>Dan.
>
>  
>

--Boundary_(ID_ZAdgRSCK6WbUsTijkggVCA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid43750347.6010300@debrunners.com" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">David W. Van Couvering wrote:

  </pre>
  <blockquote type="cite">
    <pre wrap="">As I understand it the value of TINYINT is:

- Enables of migration of applications to Derby
- Allows for better use of storage (which goes in line with our "small
footprint" goal)

The reason against it is it is a non-standard SQL type.  But don't we
already have things in Derby that are not part of the SQL standard?
    </pre>
  </blockquote>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->
I think people are just pointing out all aspects and implications of
adding such a type. Adding something that is not in the standard is
something that should be considered carefully, and considered on a
per-case basis.

SYNONYM is an example of something that was added to Derby that is not
in the SQL standard, but in that case there is a clearer de-facto
standard, it's supported by most databases and it provides some new
useful functionality.

TINYINT (in my mind) is more borderline, it's not supported by a lot of
databases, and not by the databases that hold #1 and #2 in marketshare.
Thus I see all the points of view being very useful to leading to a
decision.
  </pre>
</blockquote>
Yes, but they are not the only players in the database market and it
also depends on which marketshare you are looking at.&nbsp; Microsoft has a
very large install base and ASA owns over 60% of the embedded
marketplace (they also support TINYINT).&nbsp; Even though MySQL has a
different range, it also supports the data type.<br>
<br>
I also could not find any documentation which indicates that Postgresql
supports this datatype.<br>
<br>
If we soley pick and choose just based on Oracle and DB2 i think that
is a mistake IMHO<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid43750347.6010300@debrunners.com" type="cite">
  <pre wrap="">
Dan.

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>

--Boundary_(ID_ZAdgRSCK6WbUsTijkggVCA)--