From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: arnaulist@andromeiberica.com
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: index over timestamp not being used
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 15:43:15 -0400
Message-ID: <15140.1185306195@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <46A6537B.6010604@andromeiberica.com>
References: <46A64475.3040201@andromeiberica.com>
<14907.1185305095@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<46A6537B.6010604@andromeiberica.com>
Arnau <arnaulist@andromeiberica.com> writes:
>> Alternatively, do you really need to_timestamp at all? The standard
>> timestamp input routine won't have any problem with that format:
>> t.timestamp_in >= '20070101'
> This is always I think I'm worried, what happens if one day the internal
> format in which the DB stores the date/timestamps changes. I mean, if
> instead of being stored as YYYYMMDD is stored as DDMMYYYY, should we
> have to change all the queries?
You are confusing internal storage format with the external
representation.
> I thought the
> to_char/to_date/to_timestamp functions were intented for this purposes
No, they're intended for dealing with wacky formats that the regular
input/output routines can't understand or produce.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, arnaulist@andromeiberica.com
Subject: Re: index over timestamp not being used
In-Reply-To: <15140.1185306195@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox