Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?")
От | Jon Jensen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.50.0304171732480.1617-100000@louche.swelter.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: For the ametures. (related to "Are we losing momentum?") ("Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>) |
Список | 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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: