From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | dale(at)icr(dot)com(dot)au |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table Design: Timestamp vs time/date |
Date: | 2000-08-06 17:19:36 |
Message-ID: | 25093.965582376@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Dale Walker <dale(at)icr(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Having a 'timestamp' field 'CCYY-MM-DD HH:MM:SS.SS' or two separate
> fields one for time 'HH:MM:SS.SS' and one for Date 'CCYY-MM-DD'.
Go for the timestamp. Otherwise you'll be cursing yourself the first
time someone wants to know about "all logins between noon Tuesday and
3am Thursday", for example --- easy with timestamps, a pain in the
neck without.
Even when the range boundaries do coincide with midnight, there isn't
likely to be any measurable performance advantage from using a date
column instead of a timestamp column.
Also, type timestamp is Postgres' best-supported date/time type, with
a more complete set of available operations than any of the secondary
date/time types.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-08-06 17:51:28 | Re: foreign keys |
Previous Message | Radoslaw Stachowiak | 2000-08-06 09:28:12 | Re: foreign keys |