Re: Time problem again?

Yes, it would be a lot easier... But I can't do that, because the time
fields are default values; i.e. the time is the same every week but not
the date...

BTJ

On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 21:38, Tom Lane wrote:

> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no> writes:
> > But that was my initial question, "As far as I can tell, there is no way
> > to solve this without also supplying a date or am I missing something?"
>
> You could possibly do it without, using some logic like this:
> 1. compute MAX(time) - MIN(time)
> 2. if less than 12 hours, assume no midnight wraparound, sort by
> straight time.
> 3. if more than 12 hours, assume a wraparound, sort accordingly.
>
> But it seems a heck of a lot easier and less error-prone to store
> a full timestamp instead. What's your motivation for storing only
> time, anyway? Not space savings --- the time and timestamp types
> are both 8 bytes in PG.
>
> regards, tom lane