In-Reply-To: <dcc563d10709140817l50fae6aah40ff3a1b681e5bb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <bc40d0a30709140131u3f23c6e1h17b8bf1f96235a91@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070914084952.GB7443@a-kretschmer.de>
	<dcc563d10709140636p452e73d0y32b2a6f6fd5166c2@mail.gmail.com>
	<20070914145202.GA24546@a-kretschmer.de>
	<dcc563d10709140817l50fae6aah40ff3a1b681e5bb4@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <02B986A3-8CED-4140-AE23-C1928041A822@seespotcode.net>
Cc: "A. Kretschmer" <andreas.kretschmer@schollglas.com>,
	pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm@seespotcode.net>
Subject: Re: Optimize querry sql
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 09:25:46 -0500
To: "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>


On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:17 , Scott Marlowe wrote:

> OK, I was just afraid there was some "bad thing" TM that I wasn't
> aware of with now(), which, btw, I use all the time.  whew.

I use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and CURRENT_DATE for three reasons:
* they're SQL-standard keywords, unlike now(). This might make it  
more portable, but I'm not planning on using another backend any time  
soon.
* I think it's clearer to distinguish between timestamps and dates
* I don't like the look of now() with the parens.

Not that these are necessarily good reasons, but they're mine :). I  
haven't measured it, but there might actually be (a very small bit  
of) overhead in calling CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and CURRENT_DATE as they're  
converted to now(), so that's one potential reason not to use them.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net