In my 15+ years of web development, there are very few things I can say are unequivocally a good idea. It almost always does depend. Storing timestamps instead of booleans, however, is one of those things I can go out on a limb and say it doesn’t really depend all that much. You might as well timestamp it. There are pl...
  • Jim@programming.devEnglish
    112·
    1 year ago

    Ehhh, I don’t quite agree with this. I’ve done the same thing where I used a timestamp field to replace a boolean. However, they are technically not the same thing. In databases, boolean fields can be nullable so you actually have 3-valued boolean logic: true, false, and null. You can technically only replace a non-nullable field to a timestamp column because you are treating null in timestamp as false.

    Two examples:

    1. A table of generated documents for employees to sign. There’s a field where they need to agree to something, but it’s optional. You want to differentiate between employees who agreed, employees who disagreed, and employees who have yet to agree. You can’t change the column from is_agreed to agreed_at.

    2. Adding a boolean column to an existing table. These columns need to either default to an value (which is fair) or be nullable.

    • lukad@programming.devEnglish
      10·
      1 year ago

      Using a nullable Boolean to represent 3 distinct states just adds confusion and complexity to your system. In most cases I would prefer to use an enum with 3 fields which is non nullable.

    • delial@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      6·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, this feels like “premature optimization”. When you design your applications and databases, it should reflect your understanding of the problem and how you solved it as best as possible. Using DATETIMEOFFSET NULL when you actually mean BIT NOT NULL isn’t saying what you mean. If you already understand that you have a boolean option and you think you might need a timestamp to track it, use 2 columns. Or an audit table. So sayeth the holy SRP.

    • Kissaki@feddit.deEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      To add to this: the DBMS may treat null as unknown rather than not set. This may be not immediately obvious or noticeable, but it means a check requires different syntax and even double checks for set and value. Using null as ‘cleared’ goes against the DBMS definition of what null means.

      Sql server docs

      As a side note: this difference in null behavior can become especially problematic when you use entity frame for to map tables and sql queries to C#. Because it’s not obvious and may not be known or seen.