An unsigned int is probably more appropriate for timestamps than a
signed int.
Also note that the range for timestamps is 1970 until 2038 (or 2106? for
unsigned ints), where DATE and DATETIME have a much greater range. Using
a UNIX timestamp for birthdays might not be appropriate.
Fred,
> An unsigned int is probably more appropriate for timestamps than a
> signed int.
Thank you, that was the kind of advice I was looking for. And your point
about not using UNIX time stamps for birthdays and things that could
well be outside their date range is well taken. I'm only u
Dave,
On Thu, Jan 08, 2004 at 09:57:46AM +0900, Dave G wrote:
> Because of time zone differences between my web site's intended
> audience (Japan) and my server's location (Nevada), I've found that it's
> most efficient, or at least most simple, to do all my time calculations
> in PHP.
>
At 11:25 +0900 1/8/04, Dave G wrote:
Paul,
>(Unix timestamps are ten digits, aren't they?).
No, they're fourteen digits: CCYYMMDDhhmmss
I think we might be talking about different things. A UNIX time stamp is
ten digits long:
http://www.unixtimestamp.com/
How MySQL stores it's own TIMESTAMP col
Paul,
> >(Unix timestamps are ten digits, aren't they?).
> No, they're fourteen digits: CCYYMMDDhhmmss
I think we might be talking about different things. A UNIX time stamp is
ten digits long:
http://www.unixtimestamp.com/
How MySQL stores it's own TIMESTAMP column is the format you describe.
At 9:57 +0900 1/8/04, Dave G wrote:
MySQL Gurus,
Because of time zone differences between my web site's intended
audience (Japan) and my server's location (Nevada), I've found that it's
most efficient, or at least most simple, to do all my time calculations
in PHP.
Up to now, I've s
