Paolo,
Is there a performance reason, future (un)support, cleaniness, ...
to switch from time_iso char(16) NOT NULL,
to time_iso TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0, ??
I can't see a good reason, except for a more understandable DB
maintenance query.
Yes, that is one. The other is that
Gary V wrote:
time_iso char(16) NOT NULL,
vs.
time_iso TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
My impression is (and I could be wrong) that msgs.time_iso was originally
[...]
or the other, and set up your scripts to use the one you choose to index.
Thanks. Will give it a try. Let me start my
Hi,
I've read 2.4.2 docs and past messages, but found not a real answer.
Is there a performance reason, future (un)support, cleaniness, ... to
switch from
time_iso char(16) NOT NULL,
to
time_iso TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
??
I can't see a good reason, except for a more
Paolo wrote:
Hi,
I've read 2.4.2 docs and past messages, but found not a real answer.
Is there a performance reason, future (un)support, cleaniness, ... to
switch from
time_iso char(16) NOT NULL,
to
time_iso TIMESTAMP NOT NULL DEFAULT 0,
??
I can't see a good reason, except
