You are right that is not the JDBC driver that makes this happen. It is JDBC itself. java.sql.Timestamp is a subclass of java.util.Date but it returns the integral seconds when calling getTime(). It supports nano second precision with the getNanos() method.
The javadoc includes this note: Note: This type is a composite of a java.util.Date and a separate nanoseconds value. Only integral seconds are stored in the java.util.Date component. The fractional seconds - the nanos - are separate. The getTime method will return only integral seconds. If a time value that includes the fractional seconds is desired, you must convert nanos to milliseconds (nanos/1000000) and add this to the getTime value. The Timestamp.equals(Object) method never returns true when passed a value of type java.util.Date because the nanos component of a date is unknown. As a result, the Timestamp.equals(Object) method is not symmetric with respect to the java.util.Date.equals(Object) method. Also, the hashcode method uses the underlying java.util.Date implementation and therefore does not include nanos in its computation. Due to the differences between the Timestamp class and the java.util.Date class mentioned above, it is recommended that code not view Timestamp values generically as an instance of java.util.Date. The inheritance relationship between Timestamp and java.util.Date really denotes implementation inheritance, and not type inheritance. I hope this helped /Fredrik Lindgren Ed Bras wrote: > Hellu, > > I retrieve a datetime field from the Ms SQL server. With a win sql client I > see: > 2001-10-03 19:33:10.257 > > When I print the field in an EJB (I use CMP) the millisecond part is zero > !!!: > Wed Oct 03 19:33:10 GMT+02:00 2001 > In milliseconds: 1002130390000 > > I had the same problem with the Postgres driver so I don't think it is the > JDBC driver (Opta driver of i-net) > > Has anyone any idea what is happening and how I can solve this ?? > Hope to get an answer, otherwise I have to convert the datetime fields in > the database to a long to store it in milliseconds, which isn't very elegant > I think !? > > Eddie > > > > > > >
