A very interesting post, I had learned something new.
Greetings.
Walter.
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 29-10-2012 17:48, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> > MR> No, a direct system table update like that would rescale all your
> existing
> > MR> numbers. Eg from
On 29-10-2012 17:48, Carlos H. Cantu wrote:
> MR> No, a direct system table update like that would rescale all your existing
> MR> numbers. Eg from (15,4) to (15,8) a value 54321.1234 would become
> MR> 5.43211234
>
> Not really. You can test by yourself... seems that stored values are
> associated
On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Mark Rotteveel wrote:
> > BUT I'm 100% sure that all the existing data would perfectly fit in
> > (15,8) so, the question is: In this case, is it safe to make the
> > change direct in the system table?
> >
> > update RDB$FIELDS set
> > RDB$FIELD_SCALE = -8
> > wh
MR> No, a direct system table update like that would rescale all your existing
MR> numbers. Eg from (15,4) to (15,8) a value 54321.1234 would become
MR> 5.43211234
Not really. You can test by yourself... seems that stored values are
associated with a record in RDB$FORMATS that describes the origin
On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:32:16 -0200, "Carlos H. Cantu"
wrote:
> I need to change the scale of numeric domain from (15,4) to (15,8).
>
> I cannot use the ALTER command, since FB doesn't allow such change.
> BUT I'm 100% sure that all the existing data would perfectly fit in
> (15,8) so, the questio
I need to change the scale of numeric domain from (15,4) to (15,8).
I cannot use the ALTER command, since FB doesn't allow such change.
BUT I'm 100% sure that all the existing data would perfectly fit in
(15,8) so, the question is: In this case, is it safe to make the
change direct in the system t
