RE: dateTime vrs. Timestamp

[J.R. Bullington]

IMO, dateTime doesn't parse now() the same way that timeStamp does. If you
use now() in a dateTime field, I have found that it doesn't always write the
time to the record, while using now() with the timestamp always does.

As far as your other questions, the indexing and increased performance, I
have found that dateTime is usually only good for storing static dates v.
dynamic dates with timeStamp (i.e., a LastEdit field with dateStamp  now()
only captures date, but a LastEdit  now() with timpstamp catches it all...)

HTH,
J.R.

-Original Message-
From: DePhillips, Michael P [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 10:02 AM
To: mysql@lists.mysql.com
Subject: dateTime vrs. Timestamp

Hello,

Am I gaining anything by using a timestamp instead of using dateTime and
calling now(), for example, increased performance, better indexing, etc.
I guess another way to ask this is does the MySQL internals handle a
timestamp more efficiently than a dateTime.

Thanks
Michael  

--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Re: dateTime vrs. Timestamp

[Jigal van Hemert]

From: DePhillips, Michael P
 Am I gaining anything by using a timestamp instead of using dateTime and
 calling now(), for example, increased performance, better indexing, etc.
 I guess another way to ask this is does the MySQL internals handle a
 timestamp more efficiently than a dateTime.

I haven't seen much difference in performance; in fact I think you'll lose
standard human readable output (I still can't read UNIX timestamps), you'll
lose a large range of dates, etc.

You'll probably gain more by optimizing the query and expressions, designing
the right indexes, etc.

Regards, Jigal.


-- 
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]