4 ms·
> ...you still have to do an ALTER TABLE if you change the underlying type of a column. I don't see why this is a problem? How often do you update really big (
by lwat 14y ago
> ...you still have to do an ALTER TABLE if you change the underlying type of a column.
I don't see why this is a problem? How often do you update really big (hundreds of millions of rows) columns' data types in practice? Most of the time you'd change type early in development when you don't have that much data in the table yet which makes it pretty much instantaneous. If you really need to update the data type for a supersized table you could always make a new column instead and migrate lazily to that in the background. But all of this happens so rarely that in my view it's a silly excuse to dump all the great benefits you get from having an enforced database schema.
- saurik 14y ago> If you really need to update the data type for a supersized table you could always make a new column instead and migrate lazily to that in the background. I do this "irritatingly often". That said, the fact that while I'm doing it I have the advantages of schemes to make certain I do it correctly is amazing ;P. Even in a world where I have to do this every day, I still wouldn't feel "ok, let's not have a schema at all" would be a better fix to that problem. (To be clear: I am not "disagreeing" with you: I am agreeing with a point that is even stronger than the one you made, as I think you ceded too much ground ;P.)