> On 6. Jan 2025, at 20:47, Daniel Verite wrote:
>
> Daniel Frey wrote:
>
>> I tried to understand the interaction between Pipeline Mode and
>> Single Row Mode / Chunked Rows Mode. It seems that it works
>> sometimes, but I don't get the feeling that it was deliberately
>> designed to work consi
Hi, Ron,
On Tue, Jan 7, 2025 at 11:24 PM Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 12:06 AM Igor Korot wrote:
>>
>> Hi, ALL,
>> According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/datatype-numeric.html, the
>> smallest numeric type supports numbers from -32768 to 32767/
>>
>> My data will be in
> On Jan 7, 2025, at 22:26, Igor Korot wrote:
> I don't see the "bit" field here:
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-numeric.html...
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/datatype-bit.html
Hi, ALL,
According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/datatype-numeric.html, the
smallest numeric type supports numbers from -32768 to 32767/
My data will be in a range of [0..4], and so I guess my DB table will waste
space, right?
Thank you.
On 1/7/25 21:06, Igor Korot wrote:
Hi, ALL,
According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/datatype-numeric.html, the
smallest numeric type supports numbers from -32768 to 32767/
In this case it does not matter, but you should not consult
documentation that is for a version(9.1) that is ~8 y
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 12:06 AM Igor Korot wrote:
> Hi, ALL,
> According to https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/datatype-numeric.html,
> the
> smallest numeric type supports numbers from -32768 to 32767/
>
> My data will be in a range of [0..4], and so I guess my DB table will waste
> space, righ
On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> 3. The "bit" type might serve your needs.
>
>
You suggest a type with a minimum size of 6 bytes when the complaint is
that the otherwise acceptable 2 byte data type is too large?
David J.
> On Jan 7, 2025, at 22:44, David G. Johnston
> wrote:
>
> You suggest a type with a minimum size of 6 bytes when the complaint is that
> the otherwise acceptable 2 byte data type is too large?
Although it's not clear from the OP's question, if there are going to be a
significant number of
"David G. Johnston" writes:
> On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> 3. The "bit" type might serve your needs.
> You suggest a type with a minimum size of 6 bytes when the complaint is
> that the otherwise acceptable 2 byte data type is too large?
I think the point here is that ther
