On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 10:47:05AM -0700, Jason Brothers wrote:
>
> > - portability -- code using unixtime is less likely to rely on MySQL's
> > date functions, and more easily ported to PostgreSQL, Foxbase, etc.
>
> I thought the Datetime function in MySQL was based on the ANSI SQL99
> standar
> - portability -- code using unixtime is less likely to rely on MySQL's
> date functions, and more easily ported to PostgreSQL, Foxbase, etc.
I thought the Datetime function in MySQL was based on the ANSI SQL99
standard? Shouldn't it be portable to other systems that support this
standard?
Ja
On 13 Mar 2003, at 10:47, Jason Brothers wrote:
> > - portability -- code using unixtime is less likely to rely on
> > MySQL's date functions, and more easily ported to PostgreSQL,
> > Foxbase, etc.
>
> I thought the Datetime function in MySQL was based on the ANSI SQL99
> standard? Shouldn't it
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 8:34 AM
Subject: Re: Datetime vs Unixtime
> On 12 Mar 2003, at 22:25, Jason Brothers wrote:
>
> > I am just looking for feedback whether to use Datetime or
> > Unixtime (32 bit Int) for my timestamps.
>
> You le
At 11:56 -0500 3/13/03, walt wrote:
Paul DuBois wrote:
At 10:34 -0500 3/13/03, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
>I am curious why a DATE takes 3 bytes and a TIME takes 3 bytes, but a
>DATETIME takes 8 bytes, even though TIME covers a much greater range
>than the time part of a DATETIME, but that's just on
Paul DuBois wrote:
> At 10:34 -0500 3/13/03, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> >I am curious why a DATE takes 3 bytes and a TIME takes 3 bytes, but a
> >DATETIME takes 8 bytes, even though TIME covers a much greater range
> >than the time part of a DATETIME, but that's just one of the
> >mysteries of MySQL t
On 13 Mar 2003, at 10:20, Paul DuBois wrote:
> At 10:34 -0500 3/13/03, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
> >I am curious why a DATE takes 3 bytes and a TIME takes 3 bytes, but a
> >DATETIME takes 8 bytes, even though TIME covers a much greater range
> >than the time part of a DATETIME, but that's just one of t
At 10:34 -0500 3/13/03, Keith C. Ivey wrote:
I am curious why a DATE takes 3 bytes and a TIME takes 3 bytes, but a
DATETIME takes 8 bytes, even though TIME covers a much greater range
than the time part of a DATETIME, but that's just one of the
mysteries of MySQL that's probably not worth losing sl
On 12 Mar 2003, at 22:25, Jason Brothers wrote:
> I am just looking for feedback whether to use Datetime or
> Unixtime (32 bit Int) for my timestamps.
You left out a major advantage of Unix time: you don't have to worry
about changing time zones or daylight saving time. MySQL DATETIME
doesn't
At 22:25 -0700 3/12/03, Jason Brothers wrote:
Hello,
I apologize if this topic has been discussed in the past. I am just looking
for feedback whether to use Datetime or Unixtime (32 bit Int) for my
timestamps. From what I can tell here are the advantages and disavantages
of each method:
Unixtim
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:25:11PM -0700, Jason Brothers wrote:
>
> I apologize if this topic has been discussed in the past. I am just looking
> for feedback whether to use Datetime or Unixtime (32 bit Int) for my
> timestamps. From what I can tell here are the advantages and disavantages
> of
Hello,
I apologize if this topic has been discussed in the past. I am just looking
for feedback whether to use Datetime or Unixtime (32 bit Int) for my
timestamps. From what I can tell here are the advantages and disavantages
of each method:
Unixtime (stored as 32bit int):
advantages:
- should
12 matches
Mail list logo
