Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps

From: pj(at)net-es(dot)dk (Per Jensen)
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Index scan vs. Seq scan on timestamps
Date: 2004-12-07 08:37:18
Message-ID: 20041207083717.GA16935@balrog.net-es.dk
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Den Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 03:13:04AM -0000 eller der omkring skrev Andrew - Supernews:
> On 2004-12-07, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> > Is there a way to say "just take the value of this function at the start
> > of the transaction and then have it be constant" in a query?
>
> Why not use CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, etc., which do exactly that?

Oops,

CURRENT_TIMESTAMP *does* advance from transaction to transaction. As you can
see from my previous mail, I thought it was fixed to the time of session
start.

CURRENT_TIMESTAMP is fine for me then and I will not use
timeofday()::timestamptz

/Per

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pierre-Frédéric Caillaud 2004-12-07 08:47:56 Re: Index on geometry and timestamp
Previous Message Daniel Martini 2004-12-07 08:31:37 Re: When to encrypt