| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bjørn T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no> |
| Cc: | Richard Huxton <dev(at)archonet(dot)com>, Postgres General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Time problem again? |
| Date: | 2003-09-29 19:38:25 |
| Message-ID: | 2729.1064864305@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= T Johansen <btj(at)havleik(dot)no> writes:
> But that was my initial question, "As far as I can tell, there is no way
> to solve this without also supplying a date or am I missing something?"
You could possibly do it without, using some logic like this:
1. compute MAX(time) - MIN(time)
2. if less than 12 hours, assume no midnight wraparound, sort by
straight time.
3. if more than 12 hours, assume a wraparound, sort accordingly.
But it seems a heck of a lot easier and less error-prone to store
a full timestamp instead. What's your motivation for storing only
time, anyway? Not space savings --- the time and timestamp types
are both 8 bytes in PG.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Molly Gibson | 2003-09-29 19:42:20 | Re: mod_auth_pgsql & encryption |
| Previous Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-09-29 19:33:24 | Re: [SQL] Result set granularity.. |