Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not! - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Stephen Frost
Subject Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!
Date
Msg-id 20110626160529.GL32313@tamriel.snowman.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!  (Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@wanadoo.fr>)
Responses Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!  (Vincent Veyron <vv.lists@wanadoo.fr>)
List pgsql-general
* Vincent Veyron (vv.lists@wanadoo.fr) wrote:
> Would you mind giving an example of where a boolean field would be a win
> over an integer one?

Where you only ever want 2 (or perhaps 2+NULL) values allowed for the
column.  It's about domain, consistency, etc, primairly.  That said,
don't we implement boolean fields using a bitmap similar to NULLs?  In
which case, it would likely be smaller on disk and more performant as
well.

> I'm asking this because I frequently wonder what is best for my use; I
> normally query postgres via Perl modules, which don't care about boolean
> (the driver converts t/f to 0/1), but I like to tune my fields properly.

Yes, which is pretty horrible of it, imo.

    Thanks,

        Stephen

Attachment

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Reusing cached prepared statement slow after 5 executions
Next
From: sfrost@snowman.net
Date:
Subject: Re: An amusing MySQL weakness--not!