I would not depend on storage to the millisecond. I would recommend a DATE field and an autonumber.
Select the range of dates and order by the autonumber. DATETIME is better when you really want to compare 2 date + time entries. Also, I may be wrong, but my tests in the past have indicated that DATETIME does not store miliseconds. Dennis McGrath Software Developer QMI Security Solutions 1661 Glenlake Ave Itasca IL 60143 630-980-8461 [email protected] From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Stacy Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2012 4:13 PM To: RBASE-L Mailing List Subject: [RBASE-L] - Re: DateTime tutorial OK then I figured autonumbers are here to stay, but for things that need to also be date/time stamped, is there any preference for the single DateTime data type vs. the separate Date and Time data types (I'm thinking in terms of storage overhead, query speeds, indexing, ordering, etc.)? On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM, William Stacy <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Are there any advantages to using one DateTime column over 2 separate columns of Date and Time? Also, I'm wondering if DateTime or Date+Time stamps could be used instead of autonumbering with it's rules etc.? It seems to me that it would be rare to have any duplications of DateTime or of Date+Time if time is stored to milliseconds, unless rows are being added programmatically as opposed to by key data entry. -- William Stacy, O.D. Please visit my website by clicking on : www.FolsomEye.com<http://www.FolsomEye.com> -- William Stacy, O.D. Please visit my website by clicking on : www.FolsomEye.com<http://www.FolsomEye.com>
