2 ms·
> wtf. who would ever want that? Each and every biostatistician on this planet. Especially those touching clinical data. Personally, I was saddened to learn th
by rscho 4y ago
> wtf. who would ever want that?
Each and every biostatistician on this planet. Especially those touching clinical data. Personally, I was saddened to learn that DuckDB did not include dynamically typed, or at least untyped, columns. Happily my data loads are usually small enough for a row-oriented data store.
CHECK constraints, now in conjunction with STRICT tables, are the best invention since sliced bread! If I could improve on one thing, it would be to remove any type notion from non-STRICT tables.
- masklinn 4y agoFwiw the ANY type is valid in strict tables, and does what it says. Slightly more so than in non-strict tables in fact: it will store exactly what you give it without trying to reinterpret it e.g. in non-strict, a quoted literal composed of digits will be parsed and stored as an integer, in strict, as a string. Strict mode also doesn’t influence the parser, so e.g. inserting a `true` in a strict table will work, because `true` is interpreted as an integer literal.
- mytherin 4y agoWe have a PR in the works that is adding support for sum types to DuckDB [1]. Not quite fully dynamic, but perhaps still useful :) [1] https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb/pull/4966 https://github.com/duckdb/duckdb/pull/4966