converting field type in active database

[William Gill]

When I designed my db in several tables I used unsigned integer fields
to hold an integer that each bit was a 'flag'. Now I realize that the
set field type does just what I was trying to accomplish. Is it safe to
convert the field(s) from uint to set and keep their current values?

Obviously all external programming (queries) will have to be adjusted,
but it seems to make more sense to use the set type.

Bill

[Thomas Bartkus]

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:38:01 +0000, William Gill wrote:

When I designed my db in several tables I used unsigned integer fields
to hold an integer that each bit was a 'flag'. Now I realize that the
set field type does just what I was trying to accomplish. Is it safe to
convert the field(s) from uint to set and keep their current values?

Probably! Maybe!

But why not just insert a brand new field with your set type then:
UPDATE {table}
SET {NewSetField} =
See how it works out alongside the original int field.

When you are happy everything works, you can delete the old
int field.
Thomas Bartkus

[William Gill]

With the added benefit of having both fields to test against in external
queries, until I get everything updated.

Thanks,

Bill

Thomas Bartkus wrote:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:38:01 +0000, William Gill wrote:

When I designed my db in several tables I used unsigned integer fields
to hold an integer that each bit was a 'flag'. Now I realize that the
set field type does just what I was trying to accomplish. Is it safe to
convert the field(s) from uint to set and keep their current values?

Probably! Maybe!

But why not just insert a brand new field with your set type then:
UPDATE {table}
SET {NewSetField} =
See how it works out alongside the original int field.

When you are happy everything works, you can delete the old
int field.
Thomas Bartkus