| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Novice <pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Boolean |
| Date: | 2005-02-25 20:12:47 |
| Message-ID: | 7760.1109362367@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-novice |
<operationsengineer1(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> i have a question about booleans. i heard that a
> boolean takes more processing power than setting an
> integer as 1 or 0 and coding around those values.
Whoever told you that is completely clueless.
> also, i understand that db portablility is somewhat
> compromised when one uses pg's boolean data type.
It is true that there are still DBs that don't have the SQL standard
boolean type. IIRC that was added to the standard in SQL99. I think
this is likely to be the least of your portability concerns, however.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-02-25 20:44:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Interesting NetBSD annual report |
| Previous Message | operationsengineer1 | 2005-02-25 20:02:17 | Boolean |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | operationsengineer1 | 2005-02-25 20:24:57 | pgadmin3 column edit question |
| Previous Message | operationsengineer1 | 2005-02-25 20:02:17 | Boolean |