| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "A(dot) Kretschmer" <andreas(dot)kretschmer(at)schollglas(dot)com>, pgsql-sql(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Optimize querry sql |
| Date: | 2007-09-15 14:25:46 |
| Message-ID: | 02B986A3-8CED-4140-AE23-C1928041A822@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-sql |
On Sep 14, 2007, at 10:17 , Scott Marlowe wrote:
> OK, I was just afraid there was some "bad thing" TM that I wasn't
> aware of with now(), which, btw, I use all the time. whew.
I use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and CURRENT_DATE for three reasons:
* they're SQL-standard keywords, unlike now(). This might make it
more portable, but I'm not planning on using another backend any time
soon.
* I think it's clearer to distinguish between timestamps and dates
* I don't like the look of now() with the parens.
Not that these are necessarily good reasons, but they're mine :). I
haven't measured it, but there might actually be (a very small bit
of) overhead in calling CURRENT_TIMESTAMP and CURRENT_DATE as they're
converted to now(), so that's one potential reason not to use them.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andreas Joseph Krogh | 2007-09-16 11:00:53 | Format intervall as hours/minutes etc |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2007-09-14 15:17:13 | Re: Optimize querry sql |