From: Arnau <arnaulist@andromeiberica.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: index over timestamp not being used
Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:31:07 +0200
Message-ID: <46A6537B.6010604@andromeiberica.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14907.1185305095@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <46A64475.3040201@andromeiberica.com>
<14907.1185305095@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Hi Tom,
>
> 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? I thought the
to_char/to_date/to_timestamp functions were intented for this purposes
--
Arnau
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: arnaulist@andromeiberica.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
Subject: Re: index over timestamp not being used
In-Reply-To: <46A6537B.6010604@andromeiberica.com>
* 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