Re: Bitmask trickiness

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Howard Rogers <hjr@diznix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Howard Rogers <hjr@diznix.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Peter Hunsberger
>>> <peter.hunsberger@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:13 PM, Howard Rogers <hjr@diznix.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Why on Earth would I want to store this sort of stuff in a bit string?!
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Because you are manipulating bits and not integers?  I guess there are
>>>>> > 10 kinds of people, those who like think in binary and those who
>>>>> > don't.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> I don't know about you, but I find looking at 21205 a darn'd site
>>>>> >> easier than staring blankly at 101001011010101!!
>>>>
>>>> <snip> lots of stuff</snip>
>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Note you can cast integer to bitstring, but there may be some odd
>>>>> > behaviour for sign bits and such.  Which is again why I'd use the
>>>>> > right type for the job, bit string.  But it's your project.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting...
>>>>>
>>>>> > Because you are manipulating bits and not integers?  I guess there are
>>>>> > 10 kinds of people, those who like think in binary and those who
>>>>> > don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Er, no. 21205 is not an integer. It's an encoded bit of magic.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In that case your database design is fundamentally broken.  A database
>>>> should have content fields that map to the needs of the application.
>>>> As you describe your application requirements, that is a bit string
>>>> and not an integer.  Use bit strings and your application logic is
>>>> transparent, obvious and easy to maintain.  Use integers and you have
>>>> to resort to "magic".  As you say, it's your choice, but you came here
>>>> looking for advice and the advice you were given is very good....
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Peter Hunsberger
>>>
>>> Hi Peter:
>>>
>>> It wasn't, as the original poster pointed out, 'advice' that was given
>>> so much as personal preference. Had someone said, 'ah, but you see
>>> storing your 15 meanings in decimal uses up 5 bytes, whereas a
>>> bitstring only requires 15 bits, and over 10,000,000 records, the
>>> saving of 3 bytes per record adds up...', then that would be technical
>>> advice I could listen to, assess and make a call on.
>>
>> You do realize the first page I linked to told you that, right?  It's
>> not a particularly big page.  I had made the erroneous assumption
>> you'd read the link I posted.
>
> If you mean, did I read the bit in the doco where it said nothing at
> all in the 'these are great advantages' style I've just described, but
> instead makes the fairly obvious point that a bit string takes 8 bits
> to store a group of 8 bits (well, stone me!!)

Wow, I'm surprised you get any help with your attitude.  I posted a
link and asked a question and right up front got my head handed to me.

To quote:  "Why on Earth would I want to store this sort of stuff in a
bit string?!

I don't know about you, but I find looking at 21205 a darn'd site
easier than staring blankly at 101001011010101!!"

Like I'd somehow bitten your hand when I asked my question.

> PLUS has extra overhead,
> then yes, I did read that part of your first link... and nevertheless
> concluded that, overall, there is... er, some extra overhead in
> storing bitstrings.

Well, your initial answer certainly didn't give ANY idea that you'd
read that page.

> So what precisely about that first article, which I did indeed read,
> would you have expected to lead me to the conclusion that I'd SAVE
> significant amounts of space or find some other technically-compelling
> reason for switching?

I didn't expect such.  I asked why you weren't using them, and gave
you some links to read on it.  It clearly states that bit strings use
a bit per bit, plus some overhead.  Now, I had no idea if you were
dealing with bigints and 60 bit strings or 5 bit strings.  In fact,
you did little to really describe your project and preferences in your
post.  Which is why my response was short and concise, I had little to
go on.

> My point is that there's nothing much in it, storage-wise, either way.

Well, there is the fact that bit strings can restrict the size of the
entry so you don't accidentally get an int stored that's got more bits
than your model can handle.  There's also the issue that if / when you
ever get close to the last bit in an int bitstring may behave oddly
because of sign issues.

> So there's no compelling technical reason to switch.

I never said there was.  I simply asked a question, and got my hand bitten.

> And without a
> technically-compelling reason, the rest of the post I was referring to
> simply boiled down, as far as I could tell, to a matter of personal
> preference. No less valid for that, of course. But ultimately, not
> something that would hold much sway with me.

Sure, fine, whatever you want.  I wasn't trying to convince you either
way.  I do think using the right type for the job makes more sense,
but again, it's personal preference.

>>> But simply saying "your design is broken... wooooo!" might well scare
>>> the children, but doesn't really do anything for me, because I know
>>> for a certainty that it's not broken at all.
>>
>> I asked if there was a reason you were avoiding bit strings.  Hardly a
>> "your design is broken" point.
>
> I'm getting a bit fed up of this thread now. It wasn't YOU that ever
> said 'the design is broken', and I never suggested it was. That was
> Peter Hunsberger, about three posts up in the thread, who wrote "In
> that case your database design is fundamentally broken."

Well, pardon me for misunderstanding.  I'll stop the conversation
after this message too.   you do realize that paragraph immediately
followed the one referring to my post.

> If you're going to take umbrage at something, please take umbrage at
> things that were actually directed at you in the first place!

Wait a second, do I work for you or something?  Cause I could swear
this was a forum where equals discussed issues with each other.  I'll
try to do better from now on when I provide free advice to people.  I
wouldn't want to disappoint you.

>> You've now said why you are not using
>> the type that was designed to handle bit strings for bit strings.
>>
>> I personally would store them as bit strings and change representation
>> for users.
>
> I'm a user, too. I get to see this stuff every time I do a select
> statement. At the command line. Which I use a lot.

I guess 20 years of teaching and working on digital electronics and
assembly code left me quite a bit more comfortable with binary
strings.  I'd be quite comfortable with them on the command line.

>> There are some issues that come up if your bit strings are
>> long enough to get close to the last bit in an integer (also mentioned
>> on the links I posted that didn't get read).
>
> Don't make false assumptions about other people, please. You don't
> know what I read or didn't read.

No I didn't.  But it certainly seemed to me like you hadn't.  From now
on I'll only comment on exactly what you've posted.  I'll go one
better and just stop after this post.

> Just because you didn't make a
> compelling technical argument in favour of bitstrings doesn't mean I
> didn't read the article you linked to ...that also didn't make a
> compelling technical argument in favour of bitstrings.

Who's job is it to understand this software and make compelling
arguments?  Again, I'm not a paid consultant, I don't spend hours each
day carefully crafting arguments to make you happy.  I asked one
freakin question, gave two links and got nothing but attitude.

I'd be ever so happy if you took your attitude and went back to Oracle use.

>> But other than that it
>> should work fine.
>
> Yes, I know. I've only been using this technique for five years on
> Oracle! I would be very surprised indeed if it wasn't transferrable to
> PostgreSQL.

Me too.  But I think you'd be way happier on Oracle.

> Still doesn't answer the precise, specific technical question I
> actually asked, though, does it?!

Which was answered by Stephen Cook was it not?  I.e. use plain old equals?

> And since there is indeed no technical content in these continued
> to-and-fro posts, I'll be leaving it there, if that's OK.

That would be great.  Hope to not be seeing you around.

> Thanks for your contributions to date. I did read them (including both
> of the links you included), and the second one especially was
> enlightening, for which I am grateful.

great.