Merged
Conversation
peytondmurray
force-pushed
the
89-binary-followup
branch
from
d8481c9 to
647be99
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR more carefully sets the
SQL_C_TYPES, building on #40.There's scant documentation about the effect the
TargetTypeargument ofSQLBindColhas on the values that get written to a buffer.After some additional testing, using
SQL_C_BINARYas theTargetTypeavoids storing BLOB columns as hexadecimal-in-strings with sqlite, greatly improving the user experience. With that, I've also associatedSQL_C_TYPESwith numpy types for (un)signed integers. Finally, I added some more testing to make sure that type coercion works with other types.