unsigned-integer

I am specifically thinking about unsigned int . Here is a practical example: what do you do when your identity column maxes out? It's possible to either go BigInt (8 bytes storage instead of 4) or to refactor the application to support negative integers, and even to create your own rules as indicated in this answer ; neither of those options are optimal. UInt would be an ideal solution, but SQL Server does not offer it (where MySQL does). I understand that unsigned datatypes are not part of the SQL standard (SQL-2003) but still seems like a waste to me. What is the reason of not including

I understand that, regarding implicit conversions, if we have an unsigned type operand and a signed type operand, and the type of the unsigned operand is the same as (or larger) than the type of the signed operand, the signed operand will be converted to unsigned. So: unsigned int u = 10; signed int s = -8; std::cout << s + u << std::endl; //prints 2 because it will convert `s` to `unsigned int`, now `s` has the value //4294967288, then it will add `u` to it, which is an out-of-range value, so, //in my machine, `4294967298 % 4294967296 = 2` What I don't understand - I read that if the signed

I came across this post ( What is the difference between tinyint, smallint, mediumint, bigint and int in MySQL? ) and realized that PostgreSQL does not support unsigned integer. Can anyone help to explain why is it so? Most of the time, I use unsigned integer as auto incremented primary key in MySQL. In such design, how can I overcome this when I port my database from MySQL to PostgreSQL? Thanks. It is already answered why postgresql lacks unsigned types. However I would suggest to use domains for unsigned types. http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/sql-createdomain.html CREATE DOMAIN

As the question title reads, assigning 2^31 to a signed and unsigned 32-bit integer variable gives an unexpected result. Here is the short program (in C++ ), which I made to see what's going on: #include <cstdio> using namespace std; int main() { unsigned long long n = 1<<31; long long n2 = 1<<31; // this works as expected printf("%llu\n",n); printf("%lld\n",n2); printf("size of ULL: %d, size of LL: %d\n", sizeof(unsigned long long), sizeof(long long) ); return 0; } Here's the output: MyPC / # c++ test.cpp -o test MyPC / # ./test 18446744071562067968 <- Should be 2^31 right? -2147483648 <-

Consider these definitions: int x=5; int y=-5; unsigned int z=5; How are they stored in memory? Can anybody explain the bit representation of these in memory? Can int x=5 and int y=-5 have same bit representation in memory? ISO C states what the differences are. The int data type is signed and has a minimum range of at least -32767 through 32767 inclusive. The actual values are given in limits.h as INT_MIN and INT_MAX respectively. An unsigned int has a minimal range of 0 through 65535 inclusive with the actual maximum value being UINT_MAX from that same header file. Beyond that, the standard

Using integer math alone, I'd like to "safely" average two unsigned ints in C++. What I mean by "safely" is avoiding overflows (and anything else that can be thought of). For instance, averaging 200 and 5000 is easy: unsigned int a = 200; unsigned int b = 5000; unsigned int average = (a + b) / 2; // Equals: 2600 as intended But in the case of 4294967295 and 5000 then: unsigned int a = 4294967295; unsigned int b = 5000; unsigned int average = (a + b) / 2; // Equals: 2499 instead of 2147486147 The best I've come up with is: unsigned int a = 4294967295; unsigned int b = 5000; unsigned int average

I have a simple program. Notice that I use an unsigned fixed-width integer 1 byte in size. #include <cstdint> #include <iostream> #include <limits> int main() { uint8_t x = 12; std::cout << (x << 1) << '\n'; std::cout << ~x; std::cin.clear(); std::cin.ignore(std::numeric_limits<std::streamsize>::max(), '\n'); std::cin.get(); return 0; } My output is the following. 24 -13 I tested larger numbers and operator << always gives me positive numbers, while operator ~ always gives me negative numbers. I then used sizeof() and found... When I use the left shift bitwise operator( << ), I receive an