From: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com>
To: PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 03:04:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20030206110435.27538.qmail@web80303.mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
Hi:
Are there cases when a TIME data type is a better
choice over the TIMESTAMP data type?
It seems that PostgreSQL (I'm using 7.2.3)
encourage its users to use TIMESTAMP over TIME data
type. I said this because of the following:
a) More functions for DATE and TIMESTAMP data types
such as to_date() and to_timestamp(). Howver, function
to_time() does not exist.
b) Same amount of storage for TIMESTAMP and for
TIME. Time with time zone even need more storage space
than a timestamp (12 bytes vs. 8 bytes).
c) It's harder to TIMESTAMP to TIME and vice versa,
while its easier to cast TIMESTAMP to DATE and vice
versa.
thank you very much,
ludwig
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
In-Reply-To: <20030206110435.27538.qmail@web80303.mail.yahoo.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