| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Karl Denninger <karl(at)denninger(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
| Date: | 2009-09-08 02:54:37 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070909071954j17735a10qc8f35d25a5806d8f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 10:05 PM, Karl Denninger<karl(at)denninger(dot)net> wrote:
> The individual boolean fields don't kill me and in terms of some of the
> application issues they're actually rather easy to code for.
>
> The problem with re-coding for them is extensibility (by those who install
> and administer the package); a mask leaves open lots of extra bits for
> "site-specific" use, where hard-coding booleans does not, and since the
> executable is a binary it instantly becomes a huge problem for everyone but
> me.
>
> It does appear, however, that a bitfield doesn't evaluate any differently
> than does an integer used with a mask, so there you have it..... it is what
> it is, and if I want this sort of selectivity in the search I have no
> choice.
You can always create 32 boolean fields and only use some of them,
leaving the others for site-specific use...
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-09-08 03:36:11 | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-09-08 02:22:47 | Re: Planner question - "bit" data types |