I feel safer now :)
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017, 12:57 PM Rowan Worth wrote:
> In that case you would be well advised to use a monotonic clock source,
> rather than a "date-generating" clock. In linux this is the difference
> between providing CLOCK_MONOTONIC or CLOCK_REALTIME as the first argument
> t
In that case you would be well advised to use a monotonic clock source,
rather than a "date-generating" clock. In linux this is the difference
between providing CLOCK_MONOTONIC or CLOCK_REALTIME as the first argument
to clock_gettime().
But any API you might use to set a trigger for 2 seconds into
On 2017/10/13 12:42 PM, Wout Mertens wrote:
Thank you, very interesting!
The leap second behavior is slightly worrying, basically anything
time-based (animations etc) will take a second longer? What if you want an
engine burn to last 2 seconds, set a trigger for 2 seconds from now, and
then it'
Thank you, very interesting!
The leap second behavior is slightly worrying, basically anything
time-based (animations etc) will take a second longer? What if you want an
engine burn to last 2 seconds, set a trigger for 2 seconds from now, and
then it's burning 50% longer?
On Thu, Oct 12, 2017, 3:
This has not much to do with the original question, but as physicist I
cannot resist:
National institutes (NIST in the US, NPL in the UK, PTB in Germany, to name
just a few) provide reference times in UTC, which are distributed nowadays
also via the internet, e.g. the NTP protocol. Therefore clock
>Better yet, either one of the datetime() or julianday() functions
>(with the same one used consistently in all places) will work best
>for comparison since the output for either one sorts correctly
>against itself. strftime() should be saved for display formatting.
Only for a timestring with a c
1
> 00:00:20');
> 0
>
> sqlite> select julianday('1970-01-01 00:01:40') < julianday('1970-01-01
> 00:00:20');
> 0
>
> sqlite> select datetime('now', '+300 seconds') < datetime('now');
> 0
>
> sqlite> select datet
;
0
sqlite> select datetime('now', '+300 seconds') < datetime('now');
0
sqlite> select datetime('now', '-300 seconds') < datetime('now');
1
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglis
On 11 Oct 2017, at 18:53, R Smith wrote:
> Yes. When you concatenate/add a string and integer together some SQL
> engines will try to give a sensible result, so that '5' + 3 will yield 8
> because 3 is INT and it reckons that '5' probably meant 5 since it is
> added to another INT and the 5 do
On 2017/10/11 7:15 PM, Don V Nielsen wrote:
So strftime always returns TEXT. Correct?
Yes. The "str" in "strftime" means "string" which is text output. You
can read the name "strftime" as "string-formatted-time value".
It was the application of +300 to
that result that changed the type to
n it into an integer as well.
>
> sqlite> select strftime('%s', '2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 300 <
> strftime('%s','2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 0;
> strftime('%s', '2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 300 < strftime('%s','2017-10-
;,'2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 0;
strftime('%s', '2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 300 < strftime('%s','2017-10-11
10:04:43') + 0
0
-Original Message-
From: David Raymond
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:10 AM
To: sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite
ngineer | TomTom | Lebanon, NH, United States
e-mail: david.raym...@tomtom.com | office +1 603 306 8498 | www.tomtom.com
-Original Message-
From: sqlite-users [mailto:sqlite-users-boun...@mailinglists.sqlite.org] On
Behalf Of Eric Bollengier
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:55 A
Hello,
I have noticed a problem in SQLite 3.20.1 for a simple operation based
on strftime('%s').
With SQLite 3.20.1 and 3.6.18
sqlite> select (strftime('%s', '2017-10-11 10:04:43') + 300) <
strftime('%s', '2017-10-11 10:04:43');
1
If I use the CAST operator on the second member, it works
sql
14 matches
Mail list logo
