X-Original-To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B7D2474E44
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 07:08:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from web80301.mail.yahoo.com (web80301.mail.yahoo.com
 [66.218.79.17])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 53472474E42
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  6 Feb 2003 07:08:49 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <20030206120851.54519.qmail@web80301.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [203.87.150.116] by web80301.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP;
	Thu, 06 Feb 2003 04:08:51 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 04:08:51 -0800 (PST)
From: Ludwig Lim <lud_nowhere_man@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: TIME vs. TIMESTAMP data type
To: Tomasz Myrta <jasiek@klaster.net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Mailing List <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <3E42481C.6050705@klaster.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
X-Archive-Number: 200302/114
X-Sequence-Number: 11512

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