Reinhart Viane wrote:
Concerning datetime type:
Eg. in a forum if someone posts a message the date and the time is stored
and shown of that message.
I suppose they use timestamp in that case?
They could, but because of the 'magic' behaviour of TIMESTAMP a DATETIME
is often used. To conserve space,
Reinhart's request was to keep it's DATE type in place instead of changing
it to DATETIME... that's why I emphasized that DATE is better and he should
keep it that way ! (Comming back to it if I think... a DATE column beside a
TIME column would use 6 bytes... not 8 bytes as DATETIME... at 100 milli
Gabriel PREDA wrote:
Let me assure you that DATETIME is the worst choice ever... because it need
8 bytes per record...
TIMESTAMP uses only 4
...but TIMESTAMP has a special behaviour which may not be wanted in all
cases: the first TIMESTAMP column of a table is updated automatically
when _any_ col
]
Verzonden: vrijdag 18 februari 2005 12:30
Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mysql@lists.mysql.com
Onderwerp: Re: compare dates
Let me assure you that DATETIME is the worst choice ever... because it need
8 bytes per record...
TIMESTAMP uses only 4
DATE uses only 3, so does TIME
YEAR is the smallest... 1
Let me assure you that DATETIME is the worst choice ever... because it need
8 bytes per record...
TIMESTAMP uses only 4
DATE uses only 3, so does TIME
YEAR is the smallest... 1 byte.
You can do:
SELECT * FROM activities WHERE act_date >= NOW()
But for optimization... you should not compute in
Hi Manisha
I have used the same thing in a pretty different way.
Basicallyi have stored the date in string format say 'MMDD' and then
done simple comparison say 20031125<20031029 by converting it into Long
format in my local code (note::this will specially work in case of MMDD
forma
