| From: | <kaiq(at)realtyideas(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | jose soares <jose(at)sferacarta(dot)com>, Ed Loehr <ELOEHR(at)austin(dot)rr(dot)com>, "Ross J(dot) Reedstrom" <reedstrm(at)wallace(dot)ece(dot)rice(dot)edu>, Dale Anderson <danderso(at)crystalsugar(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] Date & Time |
| Date: | 1999-12-02 00:21:24 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.10.9912011817550.9191-100000@picasso.realtyideas.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
no, you won't ;-)
further testing indicates that current_stamp like current, instead of
now/now().
also, I remembered (I tried to check the archive, but failed) now() should
not be use in where clause, cos it will hurt performance.
Kai
On Wed, 1 Dec 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Ed Loehr ha scritto:
> >
> > > Just curious: anyone have any comment on any practical differences between now() and CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, which seems to work
> > > the same?
> > >
> >
> > I think it is the same function, both of them return the current date and time.
> >
> > now() should be the internal postgreSQL function.
> > and CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is the exact SQL-92 syntax
>
> I am changing my book to use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP rather than now().
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
> maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
> + If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
> + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
>
> ************
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Stolk | 1999-12-02 01:00:35 | Too large of a tuple corrupts table |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 1999-12-02 00:18:37 | Re: [GENERAL] Date & Time |