From: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com>
To: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:08:51 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <20030206120851.54519.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E42481C.6050705@klaster.net>
Hi Tomasz:
--- Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net> wrote:
>
> Probably you are right, but you can cast into
> timestamp before using these functions.
> Do you really need to care amount of storage?
I was just thinking if both TIMESTAMP and TIME have
use the same amount of space (I was think TIME might
use less space since it doesn't need to store month,
year, day as compared to TIMESTAMP), and TIMESTAMP
have more functions and is easier to cast, I might as
well use TIMESTAMP.
> Don't forget about INTERVAL type, which is very
> useful for time calculations.
>
--> I'll check that one out.
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
http://sbc.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, jasiek@klaster.net
Subject: Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
In-Reply-To: <20030206120851.54519.qmail@web80301.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