CF_SQL_INTEGER vs CF_SQL_INT

[cffaelix]

Has any one noticed problems with using CF_SQL_INTEGER only to find
that if they're changed to CF_SQL_INT they work?

I looked on the macromedia livedocs site and there's no mention of
CF_SQL_INT. Yet, googling for CF_SQL_INT returns a lot of instances
where people are using it.

What's the difference, and why is it picky now that we've gone from
CFMX6.1 to CFMX7?

thanks!

[Steve Onnis]

i use NUMERIC

allows for larger numbers

[Brett Payne-Rhodes]

But no rounding issues when you use INTs...

B)

[Steve Onnis]

That's got nothing to do with cf

It's the way the table is set up

[Brett Payne-Rhodes]

Sorry Steve, I thought you refering to SQL when you mentioned 'NUMERIC'. That's not something I've ever had to use in CF...

But I think maybe it does have something to do with CF... It's the classic (10) not being equal to (9.1 + 0.9) - or something like that. Using INT (in my experience) certainly helps to alleviate that issue. Explicitly... I generally store dollar and cent values as INT (cents) in the database, dividing or multiplying by 100 when I need to display the value or put it into the database.

I find it is more reliable, your mileage may vary so feel free to flame away...

Brett
B)

[Steve Onnis]

Why would you do that

That's what DECIMAL is for, or the MONEY column type if its available

Steve

[cffaelix]

Ok, let me clarify. We've been using CFMx6.1 and upgraded to CFMX7.
We always use CF_SQL_INTEGER. CF_SQL_INT is not even listed in the
cfdocs.
We use MSSQL 2000 and we use the INT type for the integer fields.
We have not come across -any- problems with this until we upgraded to
cfmx7.

So, the questions are:
What is CF_SQL_INT?
Does it exist in CFMx6.1?

We don't really want to have to change all instances of CF_SQL_INTEGER
to CF_SQL_INT just to make our code work if possible.