RE: Timestamp - to be or not to be?

From: Lex de Haan <lex.de.haan_at_naturaljoin.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:17:29 +0100
Message-ID: <JFEEIGBIDOCCDALDIPLNCEBACBAA.lex.de.haan@naturaljoin.nl>

if you don't need the sub-seconds precision, you should stick to using DATE --
it saves you quite some storage (7 bytes as opposed to 11 bytes) and if you store timezone info it even goes up to 13 bytes ...

kind regards,
Lex.

-----Original Message-----

From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of Mark Moynahan Sent: donderdag 18 maart 2004 21:37
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Timestamp - to be or not to be?

Hi,

Are there any technical reasons not to go forth with timestamp instead of date datatype? Are there any gotcha's by converting to timestamp?

If an application doesn't use fractions of a second is there any real need to use timestamp datatype?

Thanks,

Mark

---

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

---

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html

---

---

Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com

---

To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--

Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html

---

Received on Thu Mar 18 2004 - 15:25:57 CST