From: | Jon Jensen <jon(at)endpoint(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Date: | 2003-04-17 17:38:02 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.50.0304171732480.1617-100000@louche.swelter.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Dave Page wrote:
> > - Data types like 'ENUM' which appeal to ametures.
>
> Isn't that just syntactic sugar for a column with a check for specific
> values on it?
I believe it's actually different. In PostgreSQL you'd use a VARCHAR
column with CHECK constraints, which means there are actual possibly
lengthy strings in the database. In MySQL's ENUM, the table structure maps
a particular string to a bit pattern, so if you have two possible values,
'superdogfood' and 'onetwothreefourfivesixseven', your column will only
take 1 bit + overhead. Obviously no big deal until you get a few dozen
possibilities. This is also what allows the SET type to work -- it's a set
of binary flags for a named list of elements. The docs are here:
http://www.mysql.com/documentation/mysql/bychapter/manual_Reference.html#ENUM
I don't like the fact that numbers don't really work (being used as
indices rather than names), that case isn't tolerated, that invalid
entries go in as empty strings, etc., so I certainly wouldn't want to see
them emulated exactly in PostgreSQL, but I imagine that ENUM could save a
lot of disk space in certain circumstances, and SET seems useful.
Jon
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2003-04-17 17:41:35 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-17 16:40:42 | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |